Again, a distinction without a difference. They pursued a deliberate strategy of disrupting his administration using the impeachment as a cover for their illegal launch of the inquiry.

Not a distinction without a difference. It is permissible - even expected - for the opposition party to use their elected positions in the other branches to....well, to oppose the President. We don't have a Parliamentary system in the U.S. We have separately elected Executive and Legislative Branches. Elected officials in Congress have the ability to, and always do, try to curtail the policies that the opposing party is trying to implement if they hold the Executive.

Heh. "Not my President". "Illegitimate". Hillary! Herself still brays on about it to this day. Are you sure you want to run up this hill?

Yep. Does anyone argue that Hillary actually won the 2016 election? That she was "really" the person who obtained the most votes in the electoral college that day?

It's one thing to argue that she should have won the election. It's another thing to claim that she did win the election. She didn't. She lost the election - she had fewer votes cast for her in the states that mattered for the electoral college. She never disputed that, and the party didn't either. At no point did the party try to stop the orderly transfer of power from Obama to Trump - they recognized that Trump was the winner of the election, and that the choice of the people to place him in office meant that he should take office.

Do you really not see the difference between claiming that Trump shouldn't have won and claiming that he didn't win? That criticizing Trump winning the election is entirely different from arguing that Hillary was the actual winner, and that she should have been inaugurated in 2017?