Two points: 1.If it is "farfetched" for the US to be involved in the coup because there were "too many risks and too few benefits", that argument also applies to Gulen and the coup, assuming that the commentators that called it hasty and amateurish are correct. 2. Assuming General Akar is credible (and I have no reason to believe one way or the other, so sure) his testimony is still hearsay. We can be reasonably confident that a coup plotter offered to put him in touch with Gulen, our confidence in such a coup plotter actually having contact with Gulen, let alone blessing and support, should be considerably less.