> Well there was just an attempt by the ex president to overturn the results of an election and install himself

Just as there was an attempt by a presidential candidate to overturn the results of an election and install himself in 2000. And many times before. Challenging election results is not something unusual, it happens all the time. And will undoubtedly happen again. There's nothing "fascist" in using free speech and court system to try and prove there were election fraud (or miscount, or whatever the next candidate could think of). That's why we have the court system, so they have their chance to prove their case.

> Maybe that’s what they meant by “fascist form of government”?

Except nobody tried to change the form of government. So either we already have the fascist form of government right now, or trying to prove, using existing form of government, that you were - by existing laws - the rightfully elected candidate - can not be seen as advocating "fascist form of government".

Technically, that would be a coup (more specifically and auto-coup). That's bad enough. The fear is that it would lead to a dictatorship, which is worse. Whether it's fascism or not would depend on the specific policies of that illegitimately-installed government.

So, if "that's what they mean", they're mis-using the term.