How is this Impeachment different from most trials (not all)?

PO2 Joseph Chantiny - because that’s what the constitution states.

Where does the constitution state that impeachment is political?

PO2 Joseph Chantiny - Please refer to article 1, which deals with the legislative branch.
article 1, section 2. “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the SOLE (my emphasis) Power of Impeachment.”

Article 1, section 3. “The Senate shall have the SOLE (my emphasis) Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

But if that isn’t clear enough, believe it or not, there’s caselaw that states that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process. When Nixon was impeached, he attempted to plead his case in the Courts. In Nixon v United States (1993), the Court unanimously decided that impeachment was a political question, not one for the courts.

Feel free to read the opinion on your own, but an excellent passage is:
“Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would eviscerate the "important constitutional check" placed on the Judiciary by the Framers..”

I must ask. Do you believe the Constitution states otherwise? If so, please explain.

I'd modify LTC Miller's idea to say that the stuff leading up to impeachment is political, but the actual trial and judgement should be as a-political as possible. That's why the bar is set so high for conviction. Andrew Johnson was a horrible president, and he did violate various things that the Congress used to try and mitigate his awfulness. That said, it came down to one vote, and that senator( Andrew Ross, R. Kansas)voted to acquit along with five other Republicans and Johnson kept his job.

Yup

CWO3 (Join to see) - But note since 45 voted that they think this is unconstitutional, that means unless someone has a change of heart Trump will not be convicted not enough votes. Plus I think if this ever made it to the supreme court they will strike it down as unconstitutional. The rule of law says impeachment is to remove a sitting president, Trump is no longer a sitting president but a private citizen. If they push ahead with this, then who is to say once the Republicans take control of the house they can go after Obama for some charge. All this is, is a political folly, get that big bad orange man.

SSG (Join to see) - The difference may be them initiating while he was still in office. They will be arguing if it is unconstitutional even though the 55-45 vote failed to block it. Scholars are split over it, although most say it is permissible. It has never happened with a former President. No language or case law prevents it.

CWO3 (Join to see) - Just a waste of time and money again at at time when we need them focused on other things, but I guess this is par for congress.