Yeah but not the riots, the standards in US politics generally demand that people separate mostly peaceful political protesters from smaller numbers of rioters who happen to be involved. The Democrats identified the riots as a major tactical blunder (although realistically I think they badly overplayed their hand, they seemed to spend a lot more time talking about J6 than developing compelling policy positions, and managed to get democracy voted out which is quite impressive - I'm hoping they disband and let someone else contest the next election) and MAGA as a whole seems to agree with them given the lack of any reoccurrences.

If you want to put that the dividing line between right and far-right as militantism for today then that makes sense. But the MAGA movement hasn't been using militant tactics, and they'd be more alt-right than far-right under that standard. They've been pretty consistent at working to win power through increasing their vote share and base of popular support. They've been dumping vast amounts of time, money and effort into it.

For the sake of argument, say that J6 riot was a planned thing. Compare the logistic efforts to get a crowd settled at a major Trump rally to the organisational support that resulted in an insurrection with less than 100 armed people. The oomph just isn't there.