You're joking or just trolling at this point, right?
Rule of Law is not so much what is a crime and what is not, it's that the processes that underpin the state should be fair, transparent, those involved are accountable, and that institutions should be built to encourage, develop and protect these principles. So things like all are equal before the law, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, no-one is above the law, etc. Obviously, democratic processes fall under similar concepts.
I am going to bring in Hitler because it's a very good example - with no intentions of comparison to modern day. Hitler became dictator of Germany through a legal route, exploiting a loophole in the German Constitution of the era. Also, it was peaceful (in the narrow process itself, although there was plenty of wider political violence). But utterly ruinous to the Rule of Law in Germany, because Hitler was then completely unconstrained, and the transparency, accountability and fairness in Germany disappeared. Similar can be seen in places like Russia, Poland and Hungary, where all manner of institutions - political, judicial, media - have been subverted to the whims of the ruling party in the last decade or two. All legal, all "peaceful".
The George Floyd protests carried out direct action, which was sometimes illegal, to advance a political agenda. But this was not directly threatening or interfering in the right of governmental institutions to do their duty, or the processes by which they did so. They were more violent than all the above examples, but far less harmful to good democracy and good law.
And that's the frame in which I would look at Jan 6th, because this was an absolutely fundamental attack on a governmental institution and process, with no adequate justification. The potential threat to democratic process from the Capitol riot (and wider attacks on the election) were greater than from the George Floyd protests.
Isn't Trump describing a legit way to go about challenging the election? Or at least what he thought was one.
If Trump thought murdering everyone who opposed his rule was a legitimate way to remain president, would you also excuse him if he had tried that? (I would hope not.)
The law includes the concept of what
a reasonable person might believe. There was no significant evidence electoral fraud swung the result, not from states (some of whose officials had told Trump as much directly), not from the FBI, numerous investigations, court cases, not the DoJ and Trump's own Attorney General. There was no reasonable basis to believe the election was fraudulent. States were not requesting their election results be re-certified. There was no credible argument from "top Constitutional experts" that the VP could just refuse the whole process: you can't just grab the opinion of one guy, call him a leading scholar and claim justification.