Peter Van Buren: The Capitol Riot Wasn't A Coup. Me: But Isn't The More Important Question: Did Trump Attempt to Interfere With The Process?

Interesting.

But the conclusion could also be: 

[LAME] if it was a coup, it was a limiting case of a coup--on account of its extreme lameness.

   A more relevant/important question: did Trump and/or the rioters intend to perpetrate a coup?

   An even more relevant/important question: did Trump intend to disrupt the working of Congress, e.g.  certification?

   Because it's pretty clear to me that [LAME] is true. But it's kinda setting the bar too high...or low...

   Not perpetrating a coup is not the proper standard by which to measure a President's actions.

   Nor is even not intending to perpetrate one.

   Intending to disrupt proceedings of another branch is sufficient, in my book, to damn a President to the relevant hell.

   And even that standard isn't quite right.

   Acting and speaking irresponsibly in a way that encouraged the riot would be enough, in my book.

  However...the judgment is made somewhat more difficult, as usual, by the unhinged antics of the lunatic remnants of the Democratic party. Which has hilariously insisted that Trump engaged in direct incitement in his comments to the crowd on 1/6. This is ridiculously false. Contra those guys, Trump did not engage in direct incitement--and it's not even close, not even on the table, an absolutely ridiculous view. But, again: not the proper question/standard.

   What he did, IMO, is something that's (become?) distressingly common in American politics: he irresponsibly said a bunch of bullshit that made it in some sense reasonable for people who believed him to do something very bad. He'd just spent two months laying out what amounted to an argument in favor of the riot.

   I'd guess that Trump genuinely believed that the election had been stolen. I'm not even sure it was crazy to think that. The Dems clearly undermined rational confidence in the election. They made fraud much, much easier in states that mailed out ballots to everyone. Courts illegally rewrote election laws. And after Russiagategate, is there really anything you'd put past the blue team?

   Well, more-or-less bottom-line for me: in a sane world, Trump's actions relevant to the Capitol riot would make him politically radioactive--no one would/could even consider voting for him again. He did nothing criminal, contra the Dems' prime-time Long TDS Telethon. But he should never again be considered a serious candidate for, well, anything. 

   In a, y'know, sane world.

   But what about the actual world? The ridiculous timeline we find ourselves in? The world in which it could come down to a choice between Trump and the utterly unhinged, ridiculous Democrats? The party seemingly hellbent on destroying the country by first making it mad... What if it came down, Saints preserve us, to Trump v. Biden again? Or worse? (All the plausible Dem candidates are probably even worse, actually...which a priori one might have thought impossible...) Well--obviously--they're also a completely unacceptable option. So I guess that would mean comparing degrees of unacceptability...

   As I've said, I'm with Bill Barr on this one: progressivism is the greatest domestic threat to the USA I've seen in my lifetime. It's virtually impossible for me--a nearly life-long Democrat--to imagine supporting a now-thoroughly-progressive Democratic party. Which means: I see no real alternative to supporting the GOP candidate, whoever he might be. Even you-know-who.

   For these reasons as well as others, I'm pulling hard for DeSantis '24...