By executive order or use of military or anything at his disposal this hypothetical POTUS is determined to be reelected. Doing things like detaining people, physically stopping people likely not to vote for him, even deporting them days before the election to where ever, anything goes. The vote comes in and lo and behold it works, but the attempts to suppress legal votes are so very obvious and many US citizens have to make their way back from other countries due to the mass deporting of it’s own citizens.
Current “wisdom” says the only remedy for Presidential shenanigans is impeachment or an election. So yeah, he’d win the election. And if anyone lower on the totem pole was in trouble he could pardon them or commute their sentences.
The entire system is incredibly stupid as we’ve learned.
Trump cannot use the military or police to defraud an election, especially since he’s calling soldiers “losers”. Trump could use armed “poll observers” though. Maybe that’s one reason he’s so opposed to voting by mail? It’s hard to intimidate someone if they don’t have to go to the ballot box.
The President is allowed to do whatever she/he is not stopped from doing-local, state, Federal and Constitutional law notwithstanding. Laws do not rise up on their own to enforce themselves.
I’m fairly certain naturalized citizens cannot be deported either. First, they’d have to be stripped of their citizenship by the government proving that said US citizenship was obtained fraudulently.
As far as the military going full bore and using force to decide the election, not going to happen. Even those service members who still support the current occupant of the Oval Office will not take part in that, IMHO.
Depending on just how OP’s hypothetical president “stole” the election, it may be likely that the same party gets or retains a “stolen” majority in one or both houses of Congress too. So just as our current president can do no wrong because he has the support of a majority of the Senate, likewise OP’s hypothetical president would probably have the support of a majority in one or both houses of Congress. So there would be no chance of impeaching him.
If the Military, or the Secret Service, or the Immigration or Border Patrol police or whoever, choose to follow whatever orders the hypothetical president gives, then what’s to stop them from grabbing people off the street and throwing them on an airplane to somewhere else? (Okay, there may be a problem that the destination countries don’t accept them. Then what?) That sounds very reminiscent of the Palmer Raids of 1919-1920.
Isn’t it illegal to intimidate people at the voting stations?
Furthermore, they can say something about “Second Amendment Rights”, “Heller Decision”, they’re concealed carry so they’re not intimidating anyone, or they could go unarmed but be really belligerant.
The details of how force was used and what the vote count is at the point when 1 and 2 are asked to make their ruling.
In the less likely, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility, event that Trump pulls an Andrew Jackson should SCOTUS decide against him, then it would be up to the military to enforce any SCOTUS order. I assume that at that point Trump would have the civilian LEOs such as the ICE, Border Patrol, etc. on his side. I also assume that if it came down to a shooting match between the military and civilian LEOs that the military would win.
I believe it would be up to a federal law enforcement agency, not the military, to enforce such an order. My vote (sorry) would be for that to be the Secret Service. They are tasked with protecting the president, but that is not their sole function.
Let’s suppose the President uses various illegal means such as described in the OP and successfully gets elected.
Let’s say we have a properly functioning government and he is held accountable for his actions. He’s arrested, tried, impeached, and removed from office.
What happens to the Vice President?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument, that the Vice President was not involved in any of the illegal acts that led to his election. But the acts that led to the election were determined to have been illegal. Does that illegality negate the outcome of the election, even for a person who is innocent of any crime? Or does the illegality only apply to the individual who committed the illegal acts? Is there any legal process for removing a person from office due to illegal procedures that they were not responsible for?