It was not his own regime anymore. He had lost the election, remember. Technically it may not be called a coup but the intent was certainly to prevent the rightful administration from being in charge and that is considered a coup.
Ummm, it was a coup against the incoming administration. Nice try though.
This one by you was more desperate than usual.
They tried to violently overthrow the election, and you're splitting hairs on semantics as if it's helpful.
Can we use the same amount of evidence the Cultists did in claiming election fraud? Or does "evidence" only matter when it's against Trump?
I will retract nothing. He won't be convicted by a spineless partisan Senate, but he should be!
Yeah, there wasn't. But the Cultists pushed that there was and offered no evidence. I was just wondering if that standard got to go both ways.
Well I didn't see much "demanding evidence" coming from you or your side, even if you didn't buy into the false narrative. So you should know a little. If you weren't going to demand that the Cultists put up evidence, are you going to hold that evenly? Or is it only if it's against Trump that evidence is needed?
Allegation 1, "...tried to violently overthrow the election,"
I respectfully invite you to read that thread and then post there why you still think I'm wrong. Otherwise, you will be the 9th person so far who has refused to read it or engage the argument because they cannot refute what it says. Are you up to the challenge? I hope so!
