To those - who I often agree with - and who have bought into "the election was rigged" and "stop the steal", I appeal to some principles you should be familiar with.
We want to "conserve" the Constitution. Therefore, we want to follow its prescriptions and proscriptions in regards to elections. It has worked for 240+ years - and will continue to if 1) the Left doesn't get their way 2) and we don't join them.
In this case, the constitutional "system" allows for contesting elections, recounts, challenges, objections at various points in various ways in various venues, and, most importantly, to have allegations of fraud and other irregularities litigated in court. All of that has been done. The system has been used and has rendered a verdict. You either accept that verdict or you, by necessity and definition, become an opponent of the Constitution. If you think there is some clarification or improvement to be made in the system, then the system can accommodate that through legislation, the courts, or the amendment process.
IMO, what we have seen here is a conflation between two sets of things in the minds of Trumpers. I am not a Trumper. I voted for the man twice and supported most of his policies, but I am a conservative and I prioritize the Constitution over any man or cause. The first set is confusion between the question of whether there has been fraud and whether that fraud changed the outcome of the election resulting in an illegitimate president. Of course there was fraud! We have plenty of examples of it and it is what Dems do, especially in urban areas. As to the second question, those issues were litigated and the proof simply wasn't provided. That doesn't mean there was no fraud, and it doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't fraud that changed the outcome of the election, but it does mean that there was not sufficient evidence provided that proved that the fraud changed the outcome of the election.
The second set is the difference between politics and courts. Politicians can, and do, say some crazy stuff at times. Since we no longer have a media interested in being fair arbiters, it is left up to the hearer what the "truth" is. In the political realm, you can allege anything. But allegations must be proven in court, and, if one is alleging something specific as to an effect (in this case, a stolen election), then it must be established that this did in fact occur and the evidence shows exactly how it was done. Trump alleged a lot of things. Some of them were true. "Stop the steal" was simply political rhetoric that established specific instances of fraud, but did not establish that the fraud would have changed the outcome of the election. So, here we have an example of a politician alleging that the evidence of instances of fraud proves that the fraud changed the outcome of the election - when it did no such thing. Those are two different questions with two distinct sets of evidence necessary. And I think we have confusion about the difference between what a politician alleges and what can actually be proven.
The constitutional system we have has been worked through and has yielded a result. If you don't accept that result, then you are an adherent of one man, not a constitutionalist. The correct response here for those professing to be constitutionalists would be to try to perfect any real or perceived flaws in the system and to work harder next election cycle to yield a more desirable result. But you cannot profess love for the constitution and reject its results at the same time without falling into all kinds of confusing logical absurdities.
The President failed us miserably Wednesday. He conflated the issues above, he attacked the Constitution, he misled his followers into thinking that his VP, some congressmen, and a few senators had the power to change the outcome of the election, he urged those political leaders to act unconstitutionally, he insulted and chided them for not violating the Constitution, and his rhetoric was designed to inflame the passions of his followers. The result of all of that was you had several thousand pi*sed off people willing to angrily confront whoever got in their way and what appears to be several dozen people who were prepared to assault anyone who got in their way and to vandalize the building that houses our legislative federal democracy. And then, remarkably, while this is going on, our president issues a barely acceptable admonition to those doing this, but then confuses the matter by basically saying it is understandable that they are angry! Unreal. It was the single worst series of choices I have seen a president make, and it resulted in the worst political moment in my lifetime. Disgraceful. Shameful. From start to finish. There is no excuse for it.