The left believes Trump is doomed in the Senate and will be convicted

Bombshell reports from the usual suspects suggest that high ranking officials are looking to use a guilty impeachment verdict to ban Trump from running in 2024

• So if you look hard enough at certain non-impeachment statements and attempt to morph them into impeachment statements, you are apparently looking at several Republican Senators who will be voting to convict the President. 
• Throw in some anonymous stories about particular Senators who are "quietly in favor of impeachment", and you build on that. 
• If you include the concept that those Republicans who have not made statements regarding their impeachment vote are "open to it" and that a percentage will be swayed by the arguments, then you have several more. 
• If you add all that up with anonymous stories from the NYT and WaPo that suggest other high ranking officials are colluding with Republican Senators to figure out how to ban Trump from running in 2024, pretty soon you are closing in on twenty or more Republican Senators who are going to be voting to impeach the President.

It's all but a done deal according to some sources. 

But here is the thing. As of this very moment, there is no Republican Senators who have "actually" come out in favor of impeachment. Not a single one has made any sort of actual statement that they are leaning towards a guilty vote. Many have expressed disappointment with the President and some (Murkowski for one) called for the President to resign after the Capital riots, but none have said that they will vote to impeach the President. 

As of the most recent tally made by the Washington Post - there are fourteen Republicans listed as "open to conviction" and another eight who have not made any statements. Of the fourteen that the Washington Post includes as open to conviction, there are some very conservative red state Republicans (James Inhofe, James Lankford, Richard Shelby, etc) who have basically provided the talking point that they will "listen to the evidence", but for whom a guilty vote might end their careers. The list of GOP Senators who have not made statements also includes some very conservative red state Senators who would be very unlikely guilty votes. 

According to that same tally, twenty eight Republicans are openly opposed to the impeachment, many on general principle. So a better way of looking at this is to ask yourself whether or not the House Democrats can convince seventeen of the twenty two Republicans who are not openly opposed to impeachment to vote guilty.  Obviously if you can find six Republicans on that list who are likely non-guilty votes, then they will fall short of the votes needed for impeachment. On top of that, if certain Democrats (Joe Manchin for one) were Republicans, the statements they have made would likely have placed them into the opposed category. It's possible that two or three Democrats might vote to acquit.

Now here is the rub. If it becomes clear that there are not the votes to convict Trump of the allegations, then those who might be pushing for impeachment to get that second vote (to ban Trump from running for future office) are now pushing a moot cause. Any GOP Senator who might have been thinking along those lines (he is probably not guilty, but it would be nice to ban him from running in 2024) will no longer have the incentive to vote guilty. 

If I had to guess, I would offer that you will get some guilty votes from the usual never-Trumper suspects. Murkowski is likely a Guilty vote, as is Romney because he is Romney. Ben Sasse has never liked Trump and has no incentive to appease him now. Pat Toomey is retiring and might be a guilty vote. Richard Burr and Shelly Capito have both made statements that they feel the President is responsible and might be guilty votes. Susan Collins is Susan Collins and could go either way.

But at the end of the day, if all these Republicans are doing is casting a symbolic vote for a man who is no longer in office, then they better feel pretty strongly about that vote. There is going to be some deference being played by what the actual role is with Congress and whether or not impeaching a lame duck President without any hearings within a couple of weeks of his last day in office is what our Congress really should be doing. 

As it stands, nobody has been charged with insurrection and there has been no uncovering of an actual plot to overthrow the Government in order to appoint Trump as King or Emperor. Those who have been arrested are facing charges most commonly aligned with trespassing and interfering with Government business. Moreover, the statements the President made would not fall under the guidelines of what constitutes "incitement".  Similar types of cases have been tossed by the courts on numerous occasions. Moreover, since the impeachment vote in the House, more information has been brought out that seems to prove that these events were pre-planned and by definition couldn't have possibly been "incited".  

Bottom line: There is no "legal" case for incitement of a insurrection. There is only a semantic political case. While we all appreciate the part that semantics, partisanship, and political rhetoric plays in politics, there are some things (such as impeachments) which should be held to a higher standard.