He now faces another Senate trial, this time to determine whether or not he incited an insurrection.

But there are several other key differences and MAWR historic firsts to come in Trump's second impeachment trial, says Reuters legal correspondent John Wolf, is very unusual impeachment because it's going to be of Trump after he's left office.

Trump and his defenders have already argued that you can't impeach a former official in the sense you can't have a Senate trial for a former official.

But most legal experts reject that, and they say it makes sense as a matter of policy because it can result in Trump's disqualification from future office.

In the trial, Trump's legal team is likely to argue that his remarks before his supporters stormed the capital were not a call to violence and were protected under the First Amendment.

But some legal experts say that's beside the point.

All sorts of First Amendment protected speech could be grounds for impeachment.

I mean, if we had a president using racial slurs and promoting fascism and denying the Holocaust, nobody disputes that that president could be impeached, but that's all protected by the First Amendment.

Incitement for purposes of the Senate trial is whatever Congress wants it to be.

So if Congress thinks that Trump incited an insurrection that his speech provoked that attack on the capital, they can convict him.

At least 17 Republicans would have to join the Democrats to convict Trump and Mawr.

Republican senators have said they'd consider doing so this time around.

One big difference with Trump's second impeachment that's underway is there's more bipartisan support in the House, which effectively charged Trump.

We had 10 Republicans join with Democrats and say, You know, we see an impeachable offenses here and in the Senate, which will conduct a trial to determine Trump's guilt.

We could see quite a few Republicans cross party lines.

Maybe not.

Not enough to convict him but mawr than last time when we only had one.

Republican Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who joined Democrats in condemning Trump.

While the Senate would need a two thirds majority to convict Trump, historical precedent suggests the Senate would Onley need a simple majority to disqualify him from holding office in the future.

But Wolf says.

Few really know how that would play out In this case, there's gonna be, you know, some debate about the proper vote threshold for disqualification.

There'll be debate about whether you can disqualify if you don't first convict, so we are definitely in some uncharted legal territory here.

There's not a lot of court rulings to rely on, and for that reason I'd be worry of anyone who says they're absolutely certain about what the rules of engagement are going to be.

In Trump's last impeachment, the House charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress stemming from his request that Ukraine investigate his political rival, now his successor.

That made Trump the third US president to be impeached, but no president has ever been convicted in a Senate trial.