Or maybe we could deconstruct it a little bit & see where

Posted on: October 9, 2019 at 23:34:58 CT

the difference of opinion may lie?

"means the overthrow of an existing government;"

I'll admit that toppling the Trump administration isn't the entire government, but I think it's close enough to the typical usage & would be a regime change not brought about by a valid election.

That portion is the central part of the definition, no?

The following part is not absolutely necessary, of course, given the word "typically", but even so, I think a reasonable case could be made & is in fact being alleged, that this portion of the definition could also be met, pending further info coming out in this ongoing story:

typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.[1]

Regarding the last portion, about the powers that bring about this regime change, I think it reasonable to consider the partisan Democrats doing the heavy lifting to be "a political faction". Any of the 3 options listed would suffice & that one seems to fit.

The only remaining question, though optional, as discussed above, is whether it could possibly be an attempt at an "illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power". I would submit that if it is illegal, it would thereby be unconstitutional, so the key is whether it might be illegal.

If anyone in the government is illicitly using the power given to them by their occupation in the government to wrestle Trump out of power, I would suppose that to probably be illegal. Of course that could depend upon the circumstances, but it's probably generally true.

Given that there is a strong drive to try and get Trump out of power by many people who absolutely hate him &/or his policies, and given that we have seen plenty of recent examples of abuse of power, lying, spying and so on I think there's a reasonable probability that some illegal, illicit abuse(s) of power have occurred in this endeavor by a lot of highly motivated people to oust Trump. Time will tell, I suppose.

Even if it doesn't, however, the reasonable possibility that it could be makes it reasonable to discuss the possibility that it may have occurred, no?

And, as stated above, it's not an absolute requirement given the definition above.

The last thing reasonable people might disagree upon is whether it would in fact be a "seizure of power" to successfully oust Trump from the Oval Office via impeachment proceedings. If the Democrats were able to do so, they would probably not take control of the White House immediately, though depending upon the timing and how the elections come out, they could in fact just about take his place right away. Even if they still lost the election, however, it would still be a strong shift in power and would eliminate their primary nemesis & cause turmoil for the new occupant of the White House, making any of their goals much harder to achieve.

Although I think people could disagree on probabilities or definitions, it seems to me that most people would think it reasonable to speak of the possible use of illegal attempt to oust the president as a coup attempt.

I doubt that many reasonable people would say things along the lines of any "nitwit that says coup attempt and believes it (ie not joking) is just too stupid for words", but maybe that's just me.