Whether or not a crime is involved depends on the actions taken to affect or undo the election.
Say, for example, fake intelligence reports are put out, like "Iraq has WMD," only the fake report is that a candidate is a foreign agent. There is no law against the government promulgating a lie to the public. The remedy there is defamation to the candidate, and nothing else. It is LEGAL to lie to the public. It is up to the public to deal with it, not the courts.
If, however, the method used is ballot tampering, ballot tampering is a crime, so there will be prosecution for conspiracy to commit ballot tampering.
Here's another one. DACA, allowing illegals into the country, that is not a crime. Ignoring the border security as our government has done for 30 or so years is not a crime.
....Here’s another one. DACA, allowing illegals into the country, that is not a crime.....
I disagree
Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses
there are plenty of laws to cover bad conduct by conspirators in the coup attempt and in many cases conspiracy is easier to prove..I would not be surprised to see the charge of defrauding the government either
https://www.fletc.gov/audio/federal-conspiracy-law-mp3
.........................
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense “[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).
The operative language is the so-called “defraud clause,” that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the “offense clause” in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.
Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of “defraud” provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:
The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:
To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
You seem determined to establish the idea that powerful govt bureaucrats can overthrow our Constitutional form of govt in a coup - if they are clever - without any recourse under law. I am just as determined to establish the concept that if you are correct then the Republic is finished.
These sort of people will continue to try - have continued to try - until they succeed, and then you seem to imply that the people must rise up in revolt. That sounds like a formula for disaster; and even if the people should be successful, the bureaucrats need only bide their time and try once again.
Boy! Were our founding fathers ever stupid. They couldn't even establish a legal reason for the Republic to survive a coup attempt, so it would seem.