"[T]o argue, as Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi do, that Trump didn’t have a right to contest the election is to replace the rule of law with the rule of intimidation."

"The Democrats and their partners in the media have used all their assembled might to coerce Trump and his allies into silence. His only crime is that he won’t shut up about the election being stolen. Nor for that matter is he the only one who thinks that the election was fraudulent. Millions of us independently reached the same conclusion. If any of those supporters had turned to violence at the Capitol, they should be appropriately tried, convicted and punished for their misdeeds, but that’s not on Trump any more than it is on the rest of us who encouraged our fellow citizens to work to prevent the installation of Joe Biden as president as long as doubts persisted about his legitimacy."

From "The Big Lie and the Elastic Truth: How to Invent a Coup" by Frank Miele (Real Clear Politics).

ADDED: By "to work to prevent the installation," I believe he means to argue for and pursue legal processes, not to physically obstruct others who are ostensibly pursuing their legal role. If he means more than that, I disagree. As for the idea of keeping going "as long as doubts persisted," there will always be some doubt, as there has been in many past elections. At some point, you need to stand down and allow the new administration to go forward. But, obviously, you can continue to believe that the person installed in power did not really win. You have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. I certainly remember many Democrats believing that George W. Bush did not really win in 2000. And did JFK really win in 1960? We're skeptical! But it's not treason!