THEY SAID THE LAST IMPEACHMENT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TOO

They're still arguing that a process described in the Constitution is unconstitutional.

The Senate voted on Tuesday to proceed with the impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump, rejecting his defense team’s claim that it would be unconstitutional to prosecute a president after leaving office.

Well, why not call this one unconstitutional? In November 2019, a Trump lawyer argued that the first impeachment -- which took place while Trump was in office -- was unconstitutional, too.

This week, White House counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter to House leaders attacking their impeachment inquiry into President Trump. He complained that their approach to impeachment, a process laid out in Articles I and II of the Constitution, is “unconstitutional” and “constitutionally invalid.”

Trump's lawyers said the same thing two months later, after the House impeached Trump.

President Trump’s legal team denounced the articles of impeachment leveled against him, in an aggressive seven-page response Saturday evening.

“The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone and the president’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow.

The pair went on to call the articles “constitutionally invalid” and the result of a “lawless process.”

We know what all True Patriots think: An election Democrats win is invalid, and an impeachment of a Republican president is unconstitutional. By definition.