As many times as you want to describe it as a coup...or an insurrection...it was neither
How about we go with the definition of the word
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
"he was overthrown in an army coup"
And no matter how many times you and the J6 sham try to spin it as that...it wasn't that
Did he explore remedies for what he thought was electoral malfeasance?
Sure.
Did he explore what he could or couldnt do under the law and within the C?
Sure
Did he take counsel from all and anyone?
Sure
Did he do anything that suggests he was going to seize power by force and not relinquish it?
No
Was he being churlish and impudent and n=bombacious and self-entitled?
Sure
Was he acting like a kid?
Probably.
Could he have done a MUCH better job at seeking redress?
Sure
Could he have acted sooner to calm the folks and seek their dispersal?
Sure
But did he break the law?
No
Did he incite anyone else to break the law?
No.
Prove otherwise
PROVE.... otherwise
