What would we do if we discovered a duly sworn president had cheated on the election?

Aren’t we doing it right now? Dipstick was duly sworn in and we know that he cheated. Luckily, he’s going to wind up with a rap sheet 100 pages long. We can’t change the result of the election and we can and will remove the criminal from office and bring him to justice.

How much money are you willing to bet on 2/3 of the Senate doing that?

No bets but I believe when the report is finally released, Republicans will have no choice but to lance the inflamed and fetid boil that has taken over the White House.

Or what?

“I want to know what would be done if a sitting president were discovered to have done some large scale, unquestionably illegal activity”
“…nothing, nothing, nothing - nothing at all” A. M.

We currently have an ignorant, destructive incompetent in the office of President and nothing is being done. Why would your scenario be any different?

When the Mueller investigation is done, we are going to be so shocked and outraged that even Republicans will demand his resignation which will happen in 2019 if not sooner.

I seriously doubt Republicans will do an about face because of the Mueller report. If Republicans have a eureka moment, it’ll only be because the general voting public wakes up and realizes how badly Trump has betrayed this country and how they’re suffering because of it.

But when you watch the video of Trey Gowdy and other traitorous congressmen sanctimoniously attacking an FBI agent in an attempt to discredit the entire agency, you know that we’re in for a rough ride. Sorry, but for those of you who believe that ‘things will be alright’ and ‘Mueller will reveal the truth’ are seriously naive.

Make no mistake about it: our democracy is in danger, and we are in a state of emergency right now.

Seriously, Bob - not happening. Republicans will continue to deny, undermine, and spread counterfactual stories.

“I want to know what would be done if a sitting president were discovered to have done some large scale, unquestionably illegal activity: outright bought votes, orchestrated voter fraud, hacked machines, or something like that.” OP

The OP presents a clear cut case, but nothing ever happens that way. However, even in that case the party in power would legitimize their actions and blame the minority. A simple pardon can eliminate any crime.

It’s not about elections or governance or the Constitution or right & wrong or even stupid. It’s about POWER - absolute, raw, unbridled power. Once in office the only control on the Executive is Congress. If Congress is compliant there is no limit to Presidential power.

Mueller’s report will deal with the election process not the result. There is no provision in the Constitution for a do-over, regardless of errors.

And which of these three descriptors is illegal? Doesn’t matter if you find them fitting or relevant. The OP is looking for illegal.

No argument there. It just illustrates our tolerance level.

Well, there doesn’t appear to be any kind of established protocol for what happens if it is proven that an election was rigged. So I wouldn’t say there’s no legal recourse. We don’t know what would happen in that scenario because there’s no precedent. Just like we don’t know if a sitting president can pardon himself or be indicted because again, there’s no precedent for either example and clearly no lawmakers in the 242 years of the US’s existence ever entertained the possibility that a person could lie, steal and cheat his way into the presidency.

We kinda already do have a precedent, with the election of 1876, in which there were allegations of fraud in several states, with some state results being disputed and not certified.

The electoral college can vote on candidates with or without valid election results. They might be violating the spirit, if not the letter, of their state’s laws, but there’s nothing preventing them from voting their conscience. So any claims of fraud or rigging would be dealt with in the EC. If there’s no majority in the EC, it would go to the US House. All of this assumes the allegations of fraud are made prior to December, when the EC typically meet.

If it’s discovered later, once the president is in office, then the only other way to remove a sitting president is through impeachment. I suppose there’s nothing standing in the way of Mueller and the DoJ indicting the president, but it’s hard to see how they actually make a sitting president abide by that law, and I don’t see how a judge can make the order to compel a president to comply with a request that would serve as a momentous distraction and possibly force a president to resign - that’s not at all his/her function under the Constitution. That’s what impeachment is for.

He can pardon himself. The question is whether or not it would be honored and regarded as valid, which I rather doubt.

FWIW, I think the founding fathers absolutely believed someone could lie and cheat his way into public office. That is the world in which they lived. They were not at all naive.

Isn’t what happened in 1876 more akin to the 2000 election? We don’t know what the outcome of the Mueller investigation will, but I would argue that foreign interference in a federal election is orders of magnitude graver than votes being (likely deliberately) miscounted.

As an aside, the outcome of the 1876 presidential election is a perfect example of how elections have ramifications that can be felt for generations upon generations, especially for disenfranchised minorities.

Yes, it was a lot like 2000, but there were also allegations of voter fraud in multiple states.

You misspelled “would.” “Could” is built into the job.

Other than that, you’re the best kind of correct.

You misspelled “There’s a horse loose in a hospital.”

That was some damned good shit. Thanks for sharing!

True. So they created the Electoral College to safeguard against a lying cheater gaining the Presidency.

In our wisdom we have decided to ignore the intended purpose of the EC and turn it into a quaint rubber-stamp, having no other function than to give broadcast journalists a reason for an occasional 60-second story on ‘nutty, forgotten remnants of ancient US history.’