There is little ambiguity.. it’s telling that the implications are so bold that Trump’s strongest supporters here are reading into it the opposite of it’s intent. Trump is saying that the scandal of the 2020 election is so big that it would be acceptable to set aside constitutional constraints to remedy it. It’s not very ambiguous at all. Funny how those who love Trump most here are intent to project his clear meaning unto their ideological enemies. Jim knew what he meant or he would have never posted the section of the Declaration dealing with just overthrow of tyrannical governments.
To be fair, you could interpret it either way. However, there is too much at stake to take a chance. I don't want a dictator or a Constitution-nullifier, no matter how much I might agree with most of the accompanying agenda.
Not saying Trump IS that, but this sort of comment on his part does not help.
You're confusing posers and fakes, with supporters.