> Again, you don't seize power by attacking a particular meeting. Agreed, but that's not my claim. My claim is: these people thought that they could seize powe

> Again, you don't seize power by attacking a particular meeting. Agreed, but that's not my claim. My claim is: these people thought that they could seize power by attacking this particular meaning (however absurd that belief might be). This is documented by posts stating their intent on social media, as well as their actions within the capitol. They also acted on their belief and committed a criminal act. So morally speaking, they had the necessary mens rea and actus reus to be guilty of the crime of an attempted coup. I completely agree with your statement that this attempted coup was inept and therefore ineffective. I also agree that attempt did not share the characteristics of a historically effective coup. However, I disagree with your contention that a skilled implementation of a coup is necessary for an "attempted coup." Skill in an act is sufficient, but not necessary for an "attempt" of the act.