Too bad, so sad.

That’s what election law and constitutional law experts say when asked what the chances are for an election “do-over.”

The experts weighed in after Bob Baer, a former CIA agent, suggested an election redo in light of rumors that Russia may have intervened in the presidential election. In contrast, other former CIA officials say the public should not rush to judgment based on mainstream media speculation.

‘Total respect!’ Troops show their love for Trump at Army-Navy game; check out the video, photos

Besides, an election “do-over” is highly unlikely, according to Rick Hasen, an election law expert and professor at University of California-Irvine School of Law.

“It is very rare for courts to declare a revote, and these do not look like the circumstances where courts would declare one,” Hasen told LawNewz.com. “I have never seen anyone try to redo an election based upon the release of information which influenced voters.”

Basically, if there were credible evidence that Russia had interfered with the actual voting COUNT, then a re-do could be in order. But in this instance, pro-Hillary Clinton shills aren’t even saying that — because they can’t.

They’re saying that Russia “intervened” by releasing embarrassing internal emails via Wikileaks that made Clinton and her aides look ridiculous, hypocritical and disdainful of American voters.

Hasen explained:

If there were evidence that the Russians or someone else interfered with either the voting itself or with the vote counting, then that could be a conceivable basis for a remedy. But there has been no evidence we have seen of either taking place.

Constitutional law professor John Banzhaf of the George Washington University Law School said the Constitution does not allow for an election do-over under the current circumstances.

Some rich donors snubbed from Hillary’s lavish thank-you party are ticked off!

Banzhaf said the circumstances alleged in the dubious Washington Post article do not justify the extraordinary remedy of a second election. He told LawNews.com:

Any reasonable reading of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution – which provides in considerable detail for the election of the president – would strongly suggest that, once Congress has determined ‘the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes,’ that Congress cannot then, based upon a simple majority vote, provide for a do-over second election.

Both experts agreed that more evidence (such as concrete evidence showing Russians had altered the vote count or rigged the voting machines) is necessary before anyone can conclude that Russia actually interfered with the election. So far, no one is alleging that.

I guess Russia illegally set up Hillary's private server and also lied about it under oath as well? — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) December 10, 2016

As it is, a recount in Wisconsin went terribly for Hillary. The results were just finalized, and showed that Trump expanded his lead over Clinton by 131 votes.

So she now lost the state twice. Does she want to go for Loss No. 3?

The final Wisconsin vote is in and guess what – we just picked up an additional 131 votes. The Dems and Green Party can now rest. Scam! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

Life comes at you FAST. pic.twitter.com/4acAIxse3E — GamerGate, etc (@whenindoubtdo) December 9, 2016

Breaking: The CIA have just released all of the evidence they have on the "Russians hacking the election"

"C.I.A. Judgment" pic.twitter.com/TtykudlTsk — Ian56 (@Ian56789) December 12, 2016

CIA veterans warn against ‘rush to judgment’ on alleged Russian hacking