So that piece was largely about US historical amnesia, and the false line between the "civilized" West and the rest, but I want to talk about this part here, since there is a lot of debate about the use of the word "coup" https://twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1348759497850970122

If the Supreme Court had found a way to give the election to Trump, that's a "judicial coup" or lawfare. Flynn's martial law plan, if it re-engineered the election, would be a military coup. Congress denying the results would be "parliamentary" coup. And all would be "autogolpes"

It seems to me that very specifically, what happened on Wednesday Jan 6th is that Trump ordered his supporters to violently pressure Congress to carry out a "parliamentary coup" - which was never going to happen - but then they broke inside, and defiled the symbols of the state

A mob inside of the Capitol could never be a coup in itself; they're not going to set up their own government. For these things to work you need institutional support for some kind of concrete configuration of power, which Trump (it seems to me) was never close to having

But I also think that Trump leaned on everyone around him to somehow get this done, and the ways that appeared possible to him and allies were all three: parliamentary, military, and judicial. And of course, inciting public support for whatever efforts they were making

So then, is a very badly planned and obviously doomed attempted self-coup a coup? I guess, in the same way that lazily and badly attempted murder is still attempted murder, and a crime. A lot now hinges on how much Trump KNEW he was doing attempted coups, or wanted to succeed

But if I am asked to be specific (and people are asking) I'd say that January 6th was a violent desecration of the seat of the government, as a result of President Trump inciting his supporters to assist in trying to make a parliamentary (auto-)coup happen that day.