He calls out Jorge for heresy on the grounds of 1) Amoris Laetitia and 2) his condemnation of capital punishment.

Starting about 20 minutes in (out of 37), he's arguing from Jorge's lack of intention to be a Catholic pope, mentions Ratzinger possibly being pressured to resign, etc.  Not quite sure where he's going with it other than questioning Jorge's legitimacy due to invalid election in 2013.

He's calling out Jorge's malicious intent to "change the papacy". (23 minutes in)

That reminds me of one of Bishop Sanborn's sedeprivationist arguments that the V2 heretic popes did not intend to function as true Popes.

He's characterizing Jorge as a conscious destroyer of the Church.

Im not sure “intention” is pertinent to pontifical legitimacy (conflating sacramental theology with papal legitimacy?), but like I said, I’ve read not a word yet. 

Yes, he rejects the notion that faulty election can be sanated by Universal Acceptance.

I wonder if he realizes that recognition exposes all the other conciliar popes?

It certainly seems The Remnant did!

So, I just finished, and the main takeaways are that it's very clear he does not regard Jorge as a legitimate pope, or at the very least considers him to be highly doubtful, based on the notion that the 2013 election was illegitimate.  He rejects the notion that a faulty election would be "sanated" sanatio in radice by subsequent Universal Acceptance.  He believes the election and/or continuing papacy of Jorge is invalid primarily due to a defect of consent or intention, along the same lines that Bishop Sanborn outlines above, holding that Bergoglio had a malicious intention to destroy the Church and the papacy, and that prevents him from exercising the authority of St. Peter.  He also states that while we must "resist" Jorge, obeying God rather than man, that's not enough and we need to get to the root of the problem (after which he goes into why he believes that Berogoglio may be or is an illegitimate pope).  As OP stated, he comes a hair's breadth away from saying Jorge IS illegitimate, but basically indicates that it's very possible or even very likely.

So, I just finished, and the main takeaways are that it's very clear he does not regard Jorge as a legitimate pope, or at the very least considers him to be highly doubtful, based on the notion that the 2013 election was illegitimate.  He rejects the notion that a faulty election would be "sanated" sanatio in radice by subsequent Universal Acceptance.  He believes the election and/or continuing papacy of Jorge is invalid primarily due to a defect of consent or intention, along the same lines that Bishop Sanborn outlines above, holding that Bergoglio had a malicious intention to destroy the Church and the papacy, and that prevents him from exercising the authority of St. Peter.  He also states that while we must "resist" Jorge, obeying God rather than man, that's not enough and we need to get to the root of the problem (after which he goes into why he believes that Berogoglio may be or is an illegitimate pope).  As OP stated, he comes a hair's breadth away from saying Jorge IS illegitimate, but basically indicates that it's very possible or even very likely.

Vigano's position would seem to correlate with cuм ex apostalatus officio, no?

https://www.catechism.cc/articles/Pope-Paul-IV-Ex-Apostolatus-Officio.htm

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

Wow. 

Michael Matt screwed up.

The result will be that Vigano will now start to question WHY The Remnant won’t entertain the pope issue, and will push Vigano in the opposite direction.

But questioning only Francis is nothing.  Go all the way, or don’t go at all.  The subject is far too important for compromise and half measures!

I sense Providence at work here.

MM is a coward.  

I can see part of deligitimizing Jorge as being a tactical maneuver.  Once people come to accept that Jorge is a non-pope, they might then be open to questioning Roncalli et al. in the same light and according to the same principles.  I KNOW that +Vigano realizes that the problem did not start with Jorge, ever since his groundbreaking piece where he disagreed with +Schneider by arguing that V2 was unsalvageable and had to be thrown into the trash bin.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were not simply men whose minds were contaminated by Modernism, poor misguided (yet sincere) souls, but that they were enemy agents, infiltrators, and, as +Vigano says of Jorge, had a deliberate malicious agenda to destroy the Church.

Reading now…

Saw this:

“The evidence of Bergoglio's alienity to the office he holds is certainly a painful and very serious fact;”

Some will consider the following statement surprising and ironic, but I’d find much more weight behind Viganò’s position if he questioned the legitimacy of all the conciliar popes, rather than just Francis.

Questioning only Francis’s legitimacy makes it seem merely personal, as though the questions attached to him to not, somehow, attach to the rest.

I agree with the sedes that being a Benny gets us nowhere (and feels like controlled opposition to keep us choosing between liberals and conservatives.

Go all the way, or don’t go there at all.

Very good Sean, I agree.