Noam Compsky in his book, "Manufacturing Consent" describes the way that the press, through misuse of words, rhetoric and outright lies generates public support, preemptively identifying the country in question as a "threat" or an "enemy" of the United States.
This of course is a vital step in the overthrow of other countries because should the coup fail, those behind the coup will of course turn to the citizens to offer up their family members to die in wars that result from them.
Donald Trump, in spite of what his devotees believe is not a holy icon above reproach and is not exempt from the law, specifically the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution, which outlines a process for impeachment of a president, and for good reason. The Constitution which artfully separates the powers of government and creates separate and equal branches to balance them, specifically does so to prevent any one branch from assuming too much power allowing it to act unilaterally. The Constitution gives the power of impeachment solely to Congress with the trial phase being given to the Senate. Therefore, in spite of all of Matt Gaetz Jim Jordan and other's grandstanding and squealing about process, this IS NOT and CAN NOT be defined as a coup because the Senate will ultimately get the chance, through powers given to them in the Constitution, to conduct the trial and find as they see fit, through a vote, to reject the charges against Trump.
The fact that there have been several legal challenges launched against the processes that Congress has employed, concerning subpoena powers and other matters, proves beyond a doubt that this is NOT a coup. In a coup, one person or group of people forcefully takes control, disregarding all established legal and democratic processes and asserts absolute control, often times with the help of a section of the military and at the point of a gun. Nothing even remotely resembling a coup is taking place. So why have those on the right continued to use this inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric? I think the answer lies in their own experience with conducting coups.
There is a clear pattern in the history of our country that when the CIA or the military wants to engage in a coup or an illegal preemptive war they first have to drum up support among the peasant class because after all, we fund the wars with our blood and tax dollars and ostensibly, our opposition can stop such actions that we feel are not in our interest. One of their favored tactics in mobilizing support for an illegal action is to define and market an "enemy" as an "urgent threat to democracy" and "a threat to liberty" and so on. This defining of the enemy is step two. The first steps being already advanced behind the scenes in total secret if at all possible, and hopefully by the time the coup is enacted or the war is declared, the American people are sufficiently groomed into the concept of destroying "the enemy" that has been designed for them by the coup aggressors. Whether it's the Bush doctrine of preemptive attacks (based on lies) or Reagan's totally illegal wars in Central America in defiance of the Constitution, they continue to stride ahead employing whatever propaganda allows them to get away with it.
The use of the word coup by Fox Fans is sad but to be expected as they succumb to the well heeled tactics of the government's agents of deception. But for those in positions of power, for those behind the scenes, for those who know full well that the use of the word coup is a lie, for them I have a different disdain. Using words intentionally and irresponsibly is not without purpose. They are defining their enemy and are trying to convince the American people that this "enemy" is subverting democracy, is an immediate threat to their freedom, that their way of life is about to be destroyed. The use of the word coup is being employed to ramp up the feeling of an imminent threat. But to what end?
Threatening that the enemy is about to strike is the most widely used excuse for striking first. The use of this particular argument is clear. Our entire justice system is predicated on the moral argument that although violence is bad we allow for the possibility that sometimes it is necessary to protect oneself. Being an attacker is bad, but using violence when one is defending oneself from attack is justifiable. Creating a "dangerous enemy" and an illusion of threat gives the attacker cover to attack first and still look justified. They create the perception that the enemy is preparing to strike and we MUST strike first.
These masterful manipulators have time and time again, made the victim of their attack into an enemy through a constant control of the narrative and even staged events all so they can justify their aggression. These are known as false flag events. (Iraq, Operation Northwoods etc.)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).