Reply #69: Because it never hapenned, we must conclude there was never a plot.

[The Doctor.]

So when terrorists are stopped, they are obviously innocent because they never succeeded?

In 1934 Butler testified to the McCormack–Dickstein Congressional committee on these claims.<1> In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

I'm also quite certain that because the M$M hasn't extensively covered this, and that Wikipedia is entirely unreliable, that those also make this an event that was never even plotted.

Seriously, it must be nice to live in a world where even being a first-person witness proves nothing. You know... Obama never proved he was born in the US, right? Well... that depends on your 'standard of evidence'.

Shoe on the other foot; The birthers use the same 'defense of the facts' argument that you have.

"Prescott Bush was never involved in a plot to overthrow the government because there isn't proof."

"There is no 'proof' Obama is an American."

There are as many facts proving that there was a plot as there are proving Obama is a citizen... or at least an equally compelling number. To decide to dismiss some out of one bias or another is no more a 'defense of the facts' than the birthers claim to be executing.

Do you have some compelling evidence to the contrary? Has this 'overthrow plot' been authoritatively debunked? In that case, you may have a point. Otherwise, notsomuch.