The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.
Nonsense. Nowhere in the constitution does it say this.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach
pay attention to definition 2.
"to challenge the credibility or validity of"
That would be the purpose of impeachment in the case an election was found to be fraudulent.
Absolutely nowhere does the Constitution infer that at anytime an election would be cast out and the previous president be reinstated into the postition. In the event that this were to actually happen, both the president and vice president would actually lose office and the Constitutionally spelled out succession would go to the speaker of the house until what time a new election could be held.
This is wrong. A politician who won via voter fraud does not need to be impeached. The process applies to a legitimate official, not an illegitimate one. Here is the US Senate's statement:
https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm"If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office."
"Federal official", of course, means a legitimate one. Fraud has occurred in the past and the official was not removed via impeachment. Here is an example of a state senator removed directly by a judge after a heinous Democrat vote fraud scheme:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201114182126/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.htmlPHILADELPHIA -- Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under "a massive scheme" by a Democratic candidate to steal a state Senate election in November, a federal judge took the rare step of invalidating the election and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.
In making such a sweeping move, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer of U.S. District Court in Philadelphia did for the Republicans what the election had not: enabled them to regain control of the state Senate, which they lost two years ago.
Judge Newcomer ruled Friday that the Democratic candidate, William G. Stinson, had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's 2nd Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- such as a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so.
Philadelphia is in the state of Pennsylvania. If we look at the Pennsylvania Constitution we see that this state has an impeachment process similar to the US Congress:
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=6Power of impeachment.
The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. (May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)
...
Trial of impeachments.
All impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose the Senators shall be upon oath or affirmation. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.(May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)
So we have an example that you are wrong. The senator did not have to face the impeachment process by his political body. He was directly removed by a judge.
The US Constitution, as in State Constitutions, strongly implies that officials are expected to be "duly elected":
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C2-2-1/ALDE_00013580/Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, expressly grants each house of Congress the power to discipline its own Members for misconduct, including through expulsion. Expulsion is the process1 by which a house of Congress may remove one of its Members, after the Member has been duly elected and seated.2
The definition of "duly" is "in accordance with what is required or appropriate; following proper procedure or arrangement."
Clearly, you are thoroughly wrong.