Except that he went far beyond that.  He stated quite clearly the Bellarmine principle that a heretic / apostate cannot be the head of the Church.  He dismissed the formal/material heresy argument typically used by R&R, saying that Bergoglio's status goes far beyond that of being heretical on an isolated point or two or three, but crosses over into apostasy.  He speculates that Begoglio is an agent of the enemies of the Church, operating under Luciferian intelligence, infiltrating the Church on behalf of whoever he reports to in order to destroy it.  He also stated ... and listed by name ... J23, P6, JP1, JP2, and B16 as complicit in the revolution, though he stopped short of questioning their legitimacy.  Nevertheless, he's a very small logical leap from admitting that there are serious problems with the legitimacy of those also.  He states that we can be morally certain that Bergoglio is not pope, but don't have the authority to "declare" it, settle it legally ... so eschewing a dogmatic SVism (holding more to a position like that of Father Jenkins, for example).  He says that St. Robert envisioned a scenario where there was a heretical pope and the Church would deal with him, and not one where the entire hierarchy (that was supposed to deal with him) would have gone just as corrupt as Bergoglio, that this Crisis is unprecedented, and believes that this can only be solved by divine intervention.

He disparaged those (Trad, Inc.) who go after Bergoglio but won't attack V2 and Bergoglio's predecessors, referring to them twice as "Montinians".  He also pushed aside the SSPX position.

So he went FAR beyond his vitium consensus argument.  In fact, while making a passing reference to the "Canon Law" argument (from people like Barnhardt, one of the hosts of this conference), he actually subtly undermined it, by stating that this situation far transcends a consideration of legal technicalities, and in a sense went beyond his own vitium consensus position as well.

So +Vigano has gone far beyond the "lack of consent" argument in this latest speech.  It was brilliant really.

the "lack of consent" argument

Going back to your 2019 Habemus Papam video, do we know Archbishop Vigano's response to the extraordinary conclave election?

Did he accept?  If so, did he take a papal name?

 Cardinal Siri did this much in 1958 when he was elected Pope.  The Cardinal of Genoa accepted the office and took the name Gregory XVII.  But he was immediately threatened and disposed by ecclesiastical freemasons within the Church under the direction of the Jєωs.

[VIDEO]

Transcript

Vigano:
Bellarmine could never have imagined that an emissary of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ could go so far as to be elected pope with the purpose of demolishing the Church from within, usurping and abusing the very power of the papacy itself against the papacy. [This is ridiculous. That's what this whole passage I quoted above is talking about.] Nor could he have imagined that a hypothetical pope would surpass mere heresy and embrace all-out apostasy. [That's also false. The passage talks about a non-Christian and how he cannot be pope. And heresy and apostasy both equally separate someone from the Church, according to traditional theology and canon law, even if the new church does not teach this] No Doctor of the Church has ever contemplated the possibility of an apostate pope, [What??! Does this guy even know how to read??! Did he even read St. Robert's teachings on the heretical pope? What exactly is he quoting here, anyway?] or of an election falsified and manipulated by powers avowedly hostile to Christ, [foreseen already by Pope Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus, where he legislated that such an election would be automatically invalid] because such an enormity could only happen in a unique and extraordinary context such as that of the final persecution foretold by the Prophet Daniel and described by Saint Paul.

This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic can

Also, he says that St. Robert Bellarmine never envisioned a situation where there's no one left in the hierarchy to call out a heretical Pope, but they would deal with it ... whereas now the entire hierarchy are corrupted and are never going to remove him, so this situation is beyond human remedy and can only be solved by God.

And why, if he truly has issues with the New Rites of Ordination (as he stated in his new newsletter announcing his new seminary) hasn't he been conditionally consecrated in the Old Rite?  And if he has been conditionally consecrated, why is he keeping it a secret/not making it public?