To say his arguments were "dubious" is generous beyond belief. But you're right, it's not a coup until the justices -- knowing you have a conservative majority and appointed some -- ratify the "dubious" (being generous) lawsuits. Then it would have been a coup.Ajax wrote: Arguing a dubious legal theory in court is not an insurrection or a coup.
However, it sure as hell was "using lawfare" -- if bringing 60+ cases to the supreme court to undermine an election isn't using "lawfare", what on earth even comes close?
Oh wait, you think prosecuting Trump for crimes he's clearly guilty of is the definition of using "lawfare". Let me give you the equivalent to your thinking from the Democrat perspective. Suppose the left had actually stolen the election, truckloads of fake ballots were discovered and photographed, and then Trump brought a case to the Supreme Court, one with enough merit to even consider, then, per your definition, Trump would have been guilty of "lawfare" because he'd be using the law to pressure his opposition through a case that's actually being heard.
If another optometrist out there decided one day he liked your practice, was known to have a few friends who were local judges, and started bringing multiple lawsuits to the courts to have your business taken from you and given to him, using all kinds of dubious legal theory, but he tries every angle imaginable, makes up stories and asks people just to take his word, filing up to 60 cases against you (while really the hope is his friends will come through for him), this wouldn't be lawfare, right? It would be a perfectly valid thing for him to do and you'd respect it a great deal.