My initial tally (subject to change) of the 43 acquitters' post-vote statements:

16 relied entirely on jurisdiction, w/o criticizing Trump (Barrasso, Blunt, Crapo, Daines, Ernst, Fischer, Inhofe, Lankford, Lummis, Marshall, Risch, Rounds, Rubio, Shelby, Tuberville, Wicker).

1/

4 said there was no jurisdiction but mentioned other objections, w/o criticizing Trump (Braun, Hyde-Smith, Kennedy, Sullivan).

3 said the trial was unconstitutional but were not specific, w/o criticizing Trump (Blackburn, Hagerty, R. Scott).

2/

2 rested on objections other than jurisdiction, w/o criticizing Trump (Graham, Young).

1 said the Senate could proceed but shouldn't have, and reached the merits, w/o criticizing Trump (Cruz) .

1 was unclear as to reasons, w/o criticizing Trump (Johnson).

3/

7 based it entirely on jurisdiction, but criticized Trump (Boozman, Capito, Hoeven, Moran, McConnell, Portman, Thune).

2 said there was no jurisdiction but mentioned other objections, and criticized Trump (Cornyn, Tillis).

4/

2 suggested the Senate could proceed but shouldn't have, reached the merits, and criticized Trump (Grassley, Lee).

1 accepted the results of the jurisdiction vote and got to the merits, and criticized Trump (Cramer).

5/

4 issued no post-vote statement that I found (Cotton, Hawley, Paul, T. Scott).

So the totals, among the 39 who gave statements are as follows (again, subject to change):

6/

Jurisdiction:

29 said Senate can't try ex-presidents
3 more may have but were unclear

3 said Senate can but shouldn't
2 cited only other reasons, suggesting Senate can
1 said Senate can

1 is unclassifiable

If all 4 who didn't issue statements would deny there was…

7/

…jurisdiction, there would be 36 votes that late impeachment is per se unconstitutional. The majority in favor of jurisdiction would fall 2 votes short of 2/3—exactly the margin in Belknap's case.

Finally, regarding Trump:

27 didn't criticize Trump
12 criticized Trump

8/