Among objections, to a Petition for Writ of Mandamus for removal from office of a sitting President, I have read, is that only two (2) mechanisms exist to that end:
(1) The Framers of the Constitution, in 1787, created impeachment (Art. II, sec. 4):
(2)  Amendment XXV, sec. 4, added in 1967, provides for removal if the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office...”
   The Framers addressed many contingencies, but also institutionalized and protected the most evil institution in our history—slavery.
   Early in the Convention, the Framers contemplated foreign powers might interfere in selection of  the “Chief Magistrate,” later called the President of the United States.
   James Madison wrote, during the Convention:  “The ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues and influence with the Election. ... [I]t will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Government a man attached to their respective politics and interests. ...”  Madison, Note on the Federal Convention, The AntiFederalist Papers, Signet, 1986, p. 120.
   Acts committed before assumption of office cannot be acts for impeachment of a President..  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-104/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-1..., p. 535.
   If, as alleged in Bailey v U.S., dkt 16-1464, the current President obtained office through collusion with Russia, and those acts occurred before 01/20/17, he cannot be impeached for those acts. If a majority of people whom he appointed to cabinet positions—the same people who sat at the table a month or so ago and took turns saying what a great job DJT is doing—do not find him unable to discharge his duties of office, the two ways a President may be removed from office are unavailable.
   Another legal way to remove a President exists.  A Federal district judge wrote in 1976:. “It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by ... illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means.... ” Donahue v. Board of Elections, 435 F.Supp.957, 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1976).  The Federal courts can exercise equitable powers.  “The granting of equitable relief premised directly upon the Constitution has long been a practice accepted without discussion. Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 404 (1971), Harlan, J., concurring. “The point ... is not that ordering a new Presidential election in New York State is beyond the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Protecting the integrity of elections - particularly Presidential contests - is essential to a free and democratic society.” Donahue, supra.
   Alexander Hamilton wrote that it would have “been difficult for the Constitution to have contained ‘a complete and perfect specification’” of all the powers and duties of the branches. “The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794,” Frisch, Morton J., ed., p. ix.
   If a President obtains office by “adherence” to an “enemy” of the United States—treason—that person cannot be impeached. We should be skeptical that members of this Cabinet would oppose their leader. As the Donohue court points out, it is difficult to imagine a greater blow to public confidence in the electoral process.
   I am counsel of record for the twelve (12) Petitioners in Bailey.  This effort is not “partisan” for either party.  The effort is to take control of the Oval Office back from a hostile foreign power—Russia.
   If you agree that at the very least an independent investigation, as I have described, should be conducted or, further, the election was stolen, please share this with at least three other people.  Ask each of those people to share, in turn, with three other people.