[pqhwan]

It’s possible you’re underestimating the sheer practical and symbolic significance of the building they broke into (and the people who work there). Which, actually, is kind of the whole problem. Can you provide an example of an evidence that would make this a coup for you?

[Udik]

This is a good analysis of why it was not a coup:

https://theconversation.com/was-it-a-coup-no-but-siege-on-us...

In short, a coup is an organised action to seize power. For that, it's essential to have secured the support of at least part of the armed forces, and a plan to replace the top of the power hierarchy. Nothing like that was seen in the Capitol riots, which seemed disorganised and essentially demonstrative in nature. Once entering the building, the rioters proceeded taking selfies.

[pseudalopex]

Some took selfies. Some proclaimed themselves in control of Congress. Some entered the Senate chamber with weapons and handcuffs.

The authors said a coup has 3 criteria.

> 3) Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power?

The authors said yes.

> 2) Is the target of the insurrection the chief executive of the government?

The authors said yes.

> 1) Are the perpetrators agents of the state, such as military officials or rogue governmental officials?

The authors said no because Trump can deny meaning to incite it. They're extremely charitable. And this isn't part of the common definition of a coup anyway.

[pqhwan]

That actually is a pretty good argument. I have indeed been playing fast and loose with the terminology; yes, it wasn’t a military coup, but it is still an unprecedented attack on the federal government, a riot.