I understand. There's a couple issues surrounding this, I will name a few of them.
1, the Republican party has suggested that the last impeachment was a frivolous lawsuit and it does not represent the will of the people.
1a, Republican party has said in the previous impeachment, the impeachment itself should serve as a "warning" for Donald Trump. They hoped that through the accusations of the words he spoke, this would serve as a warning for him to conduct himself in a little bit more of a professional manner befitting that of the White House. Clearly, this did not happen.
1b, So now, this impeachment would beg the question again "If this recent action is not impeachable, what is?" Democrats were shocked that the allegations of the last impeachment had not even been considered by the Senate. Only one Republican broke party and sided with the Democrats to hear evidence - the most unlikely of Senators, Utah Senator Mitt Romney.
2. This second impeachment was not planned. Had the speech that he gave not given heat to the fire that broke out at the capitol, this impeachment would have never been suggested.
3. It's not about winning. Impeachment never is. At least, not for me. It's about setting precedent that we hold people who hold office accountable for their actions. For example, Republicans impeached Clinton for getting a bl***ob and lying about it. Republicans suggest we impeach for that, but not this?