McConnell Says Trump "Practically and Morally Responsible" Minutes After Voting to Acquit

Minutes after voting to acquit Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered an extraordinary and scathing floor speech declaring: “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.” McConnell’s February 13, 2021 speech represented one of the most damning indictments of a president ever delivered by a leader of his own party, yet it came immediately after McConnell had voted not guilty—a contradiction that exposed the complete moral bankruptcy of Republican leadership and the cynical maneuvering that had ensured Trump’s acquittal. McConnell condemned Trump’s conduct in the strongest possible terms, describing it as “a disgraceful dereliction of duty,” yet simultaneously voted to shield Trump from accountability based on a constitutional argument that McConnell himself had engineered by refusing to convene the Senate for a trial while Trump was still in office.

McConnell’s speech laid out in devastating detail Trump’s culpability for the January 6 attack. He stated that Trump had created an “intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories” about election fraud that fed the rioters’ rage, and that “the people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.” McConnell condemned Trump’s complete failure to act during the attack: “He did not do his job. He didn’t take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored.” Most damningly, McConnell revealed Trump’s state of mind during the assault: “He watched television happily—happily—as the chaos unfolded, even after it was clear Vice President Pence faced serious danger.” The speech represented McConnell’s acknowledgment of everything the House impeachment managers had proven: Trump had incited the mob, had watched with satisfaction as they attacked Congress, and had refused to intervene to protect lawmakers whose lives were in danger.

The Cynical Constitutional Argument

Despite this comprehensive indictment of Trump’s conduct, McConnell voted to acquit based on the argument that the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convict a former president. McConnell claimed that Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which addresses impeachment of sitting presidents and civil officers, did not apply to someone who had already left office. He argued that impeachment was a “limited tool” with “specific constitutional boundaries” and that Trump was not “constitutionally eligible for conviction” because he was now a private citizen. McConnell characterized the constitutional question as “legitimately ambiguous” and expressed respect for senators who voted either way on the jurisdictional question.

However, McConnell’s constitutional argument was fundamentally dishonest because McConnell himself had created the post-presidency timing issue. After the House impeached Trump on January 13, 2021—one week before Trump’s term ended—McConnell refused to reconvene the Senate for an emergency session to begin the trial while Trump was still in office. McConnell claimed there was insufficient time for a fair proceeding before President Biden’s January 20 inauguration, despite the fact that only seven days separated the impeachment from inauguration. When the trial eventually began on February 9 and concluded in just five days, it demonstrated that McConnell’s claim about needing more time was false—the entire trial could have been conducted before Trump left office if McConnell had permitted it.

By delaying the trial until Trump was out of office and then citing Trump’s post-presidency status as grounds for acquittal, McConnell created a constitutional Catch-22 that ensured no president could ever be held accountable for offenses committed in the final weeks of their term. If a president committed impeachable offenses with days or weeks left in office, McConnell’s logic dictated that the Senate majority leader could simply delay the trial until after the president left office, then argue the former president couldn’t be convicted. This maneuver created exactly the “January exception” that the House managers had warned about—a period where presidents could commit grave offenses without consequence because they could run out the clock on their terms.

“We Have a Criminal Justice System”

Having voted to acquit Trump on jurisdictional grounds while simultaneously declaring him “practically and morally responsible,” McConnell attempted to suggest that Trump could still face accountability through other means. He stated: “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen” through criminal prosecution and civil litigation. McConnell noted: “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation.” The implication was clear: McConnell believed Trump was guilty of serious offenses but thought those offenses should be addressed through the criminal justice system rather than through impeachment and conviction.

However, this argument was deeply cynical for several reasons. First, the impeachment power exists precisely because criminal prosecution is considered insufficient for presidential misconduct—the Founders created impeachment as a mechanism for removing officials who abuse their power in ways that may not be criminal but are nonetheless disqualifying. Second, McConnell’s suggestion that Trump face criminal prosecution was purely theoretical; McConnell took no steps to encourage such prosecution and gave no indication he would support it. Third, by acquitting Trump, McConnell ensured Trump could not be disqualified from future federal office—meaning Trump could potentially return to the presidency even if criminally convicted, as the Constitution places no such bar on candidates.

Most fundamentally, McConnell’s invocation of the criminal justice system represented an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional responsibility. Congress had a duty to hold Trump accountable through the impeachment mechanism provided by the Constitution, and McConnell’s jurisdictional argument—which he himself had engineered—allowed the Senate to evade that responsibility while claiming constitutional principle. The speech represented McConnell having it both ways: establishing for history that he knew Trump was guilty and morally responsible, while voting to ensure Trump faced no consequences and remained eligible for future office.

Moral Bankruptcy and Political Calculation

McConnell’s speech-and-vote combination revealed the complete moral bankruptcy at the heart of Republican leadership. McConnell clearly understood that Trump had committed the gravest presidential offense in American history—he said so explicitly in some of the strongest language ever used by a party leader against a president of his own party. Yet despite this knowledge, despite his moral conviction that Trump was responsible, and despite the fact that seven of his Republican colleagues had voted their conscience to convict, McConnell chose to hide behind a constitutional argument he had deliberately constructed to ensure Trump’s acquittal.

The cynicism extended to McConnell’s entire approach to the impeachment. He had reportedly told associates he was “done with Trump” after January 6 and had privately expressed support for the impeachment, with some reports suggesting he had told colleagues he believed Trump had committed impeachable offenses. Yet when it came time to vote, McConnell chose to preserve his political standing with Trump’s base and avoid a permanent break with the former president who still commanded intense loyalty from Republican voters. The jurisdictional argument gave McConnell political cover: he could condemn Trump to satisfy establishment Republicans and preserve his own historical legacy, while voting to acquit to avoid alienating Trump’s supporters who dominated Republican primaries.

McConnell’s floor speech immediately after his acquittal vote served multiple cynical purposes. It established for the historical record that McConnell knew Trump was guilty, protecting McConnell’s legacy and allowing him to claim he had held Trump accountable even while voting to acquit. It signaled to establishment Republicans and donors that McConnell understood the gravity of Trump’s offense and hadn’t simply rubber-stamped Trump’s conduct. It potentially opened space for other Republicans to criticize Trump while still supporting him politically. And it implicitly endorsed the possibility of criminal prosecution, allowing McConnell to suggest Trump might face consequences even though McConnell had ensured the Senate would impose none.

The Precedent for Presidential Impunity

McConnell’s conduct established a dangerous precedent for presidential accountability. His actions demonstrated that a president could commit the most serious offense imaginable—inciting insurrection to overturn an election—could show no remorse, could watch gleefully as his supporters attacked Congress, and still escape conviction as long as his party maintained sufficient Senate support and as long as the offense occurred late enough in his term that the majority leader could delay the trial. The combination of McConnell’s jurisdictional argument and his refusal to permit a timely trial created a roadmap for future presidential impunity.

The speech also exposed the fundamental dysfunction of impeachment as an accountability mechanism in an era of intense partisan polarization. Even when a party leader acknowledged that a president was “practically and morally responsible” for insurrection, even when that leader delivered one of the most scathing condemnations of presidential conduct in American history, partisan political calculations still prevented conviction. McConnell’s speech made clear that the evidence didn’t matter, that moral responsibility didn’t matter, that constitutional duty didn’t matter—all that mattered was maintaining political positioning within the Republican Party and avoiding a permanent rupture with Trump and his supporters.

For Democrats and constitutional scholars, McConnell’s speech represented the ultimate proof of bad faith. McConnell had ensured Trump’s acquittal through procedural manipulation, then tried to claim the moral high ground by condemning Trump’s conduct while hiding behind a constitutional argument he had deliberately engineered. The episode demonstrated that McConnell prioritized tactical political advantage over democratic accountability, constitutional responsibility, or simple moral consistency. It showed that even in the face of violent insurrection against the government, even when presented with overwhelming evidence of presidential culpability, Republican leadership would choose partisan self-preservation over democratic principles—and would do so while claiming constitutional principle as justification.

McConnell’s declaration that Trump was “practically and morally responsible” while simultaneously voting to acquit became the defining symbol of Republican cowardice and cynicism in the face of Trump’s assault on democracy. It demonstrated that the Republican Party had become so corrupted by Trumpism that even its most powerful leader—a institutionalist who privately despised Trump—could not bring himself to vote for accountability when it mattered. The speech ensured that history would record McConnell’s knowledge of Trump’s guilt, but it also ensured that history would record McConnell’s refusal to act on that knowledge, establishing him as one of the key enablers of Trump’s successful escape from consequences for the gravest presidential offense in American history.