A thought experiment

Say there was an election in another country. The opposition won the election, but the President denied that he had lost and refused to concede, saying that there was wide-spread fraud. The Attorney General, who until that point had been staunchly loyal to the President, said that there was no evidence of fraud that would have affected the result of the election. Multiple audits were conducted showing no evidence of wide-spread fraud. The President filed 60 election-related lawsuits and lost all but three of them. Nevertheless, he continued to insist that he had won the election. At one point, he called an election official in his own party, saying that this official needed to "find him 11,780 votes" and vaguely threatening criminal charges if this was not done. While the election results were being certified, hundreds of the President's supporters stormed the Capitol building. The opposition wanted to set up a bipartisan committee to investigate this Capitol riot, but the President's party blocked such a committee. Meanwhile, at the local level, the out-going President's party worked to tighten their grip over the election process, giving more authority to legislatures, rather than nonpartisan commissions, and passing legislation making it easier to overturn the results of an election. This party routinely attacked the press, teachers, scientists, and educated people in general. They had jerry-mandered electoral districts in order to maximize their advantage and make it virtually impossible for them to lose an election, and they asserted their right to continue to do so.

I wonder, as Americans, what would we think?