I've had this 'not an argument' on several different threads in the past week already, and I'm not really in the mood to rehash all of this again. But....
The difference between your thief taking something, and the President of the United States is the Constitution. The Constitution outlines how the President is chosen, and the only ways to remove him from office.
The common thief is subject to various state and federal laws that are not superseded by explicit language in the United States Constitution.
The Constitution does not give the Courts a role in removing a President from office, save for the Chief Justice presiding over a Senate trial following impeachment by the House. So the Courts are powerless under the Constitution to order a President removed from office and another person installed as President, no matter what the circumstances.
So a public official who attains office via fraud is entitled to retain and execute his office. A Constitutional convention needs to address this r.e. POTUS. At bottom it is not a removal from office in the first place, because the office was obtained fraudulently and is thereby rendered null and void.
There is no constitutional option because the constitution was written for a moral people. At this point we need other options. If the courts won’t settle this...than what’s left?