Not well thought out. I understand his point, which is a fraudulent election shouldn’t stand no matter what.
But throw out all the laws and the Constitution, and what would be left to address a claim of fraud?
Trump could easily complain about the corruption without going that far.
I never saw any evidence that Trump was willing to violate the law or Constitution.
The point he was trying to make is that when the Constitution protects those who unlawfully steal elections, righting the wrong and installing the people’s choice as winner is more important than adhering to the constitution which enabled their theft.
For if the people are robbed of their choice by fraud, then the constitution is no longer protecting the peoples sacred rights, but instead is being perverted to protect the thieves who seek to subvert the will of the people.