I was curious about the differences between the Articles of Impeachment by Omar and Cicilline because I hadn't compared before.

Omar's Articles are trash.

Why? Because it's NOT based on the obvious crimes at issue here - either sedition or insurrection.

Instead, she borrowed 1

from the Ukarine articles of impeachment - the first was "Abuse of Power" because there was no easy crime to pigeon hole Trump's Ukraine call into. (The House also had a 2nd article for Obstruction of Congres in the 2020 articles of impeachment -not rel here) 2

So Omar used "abuse of power" to cobble together two weak, meandering articles of impeachment. They refer to an "attempted coup" and to "incit[ing] violence" - cool political language, but not *legal* language.
3

In contrast, Cicillene's article of impeachment focuses on a specific crime - (reminder that Cicillene, Lieu, & Raskin are all lawyers). There's only one article and it's for "Incitement of Insurrection" - Insurrection is a specific crime under Fed law.
4

Here's Cicillene's introductory first paragraph of Article One: Incitement to Insurrection, where he specifically states that Trump that committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence (same language as Omar but now it's anchored to a Fed crime - "insurrection")

Then, unlike Omar (will discuss what acts by Trump she focussed on later), Cicilline tells us what was supposed to happen inside the Capitol on January 6th - this is important because it contains the elements of the *sedition* crimes committed by bad actors. 6

Notice that Cicilline mentions the vote, the presence of the VP, the House, the Senate, and implies the presence of the 2nd in line (Speaker) by referencing the House. So you have what was going on in the Capitol and just how much of our government was present there. 7

Cicilline, in that one part of the paragraph about the vote, has laid out the elements of Sedition, which is pretty easily what all those Storm the Capitol types were trying to do - interrupt the Counting of Electoral College votes. 8

Here's the language of the crime of Sedition - you can see that, at a minimum, these rioters were attempting to and did succeed "to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States." They prevented, hindered, or delayed vote count
9 https://twitter.com/TheePurity/status/1347440842999361536?s=20

Back to what Cicciline says in Article 1. "Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump addressed a crowd of his political supporters nearby. There, he reiterated false claims that ‘we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.’"
10

Cicilline then alleged that Trump intentionally made statements to encourage and did encourage storming the Capitol, and that the mob acted on those very statements. The mob attacked LE and threatened Congress and the VP, interfering with their duties.
11

Importantly, Cicilline here specifically says that the mob itself "engaged in violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts." There it is, the explicit reference to the Sedition (a criminal act) of the mobsters. To anyone looking at this in the future, they now know
12

that Trump engaged in the conspiracy of sedition or incitement of sedition, even though it's not an actual Article of Impeachment - an article which is limited to Incitement of Insurrection.
13

Then, having laid out a compelling case for Trump having incited insurrection on January 6th, Cicilline circles back to Trump's January 2nd phone call with Georgia's Secretary of State, to show that this was a pattern of conduct leading up to January 6.
14

Next, Cicilline shows the broader damage Trump has done to our democracy.
15

Finally, Cicilline makes the case for why Trump's conduct warrants an impeachment now, even though there are less than two weeks left in Trump's term.
16

All Articles of Impeachment have this language (something I didn't focus on during the prior impeachment):

"[warrants] disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."

This language is shorthand for result.

17

Cicilline, Lieu, and Raskin drafted an exceptional "Resolution Impeaching DJT for High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

In contrast, Omar's draft Resolution is not exceptional. Hers isn't at all like the Resolution that the House will consider Monday.
18

Omar's first Art. of Impeachment focuses on Trump's January 2nd call with GA's Sec of State, alleging that Trump "has abused the powers of the Presidency by attempting to unlawfully overturn the results of the November 2020 Presidential election in the State of Georgia."

19

Omar is alleging an abuse of power for trying to overturn GA's results. It's unclear what's being alleged here other than "abuse of power" because she uses fuzzy language & a vague reference "to direct contravention of both Federal law and the laws of the State of Georgia."

20

I don't know why an impeachment would be based on violations of "the laws of the State of Georgia" or whether it's even appropriate to impeach based on state law.

The main thing is that we've seen this play before and, as a lawyer, you want to avoid prior defenses . . .

21

even bs defenses. What was a major argument of Trump's defenders in the Ukraine impeachment trial? "No harm, no foul" - Ukraine's President didn't follow through on what Trump wanted, so why should he be impeached?

22

Here, the defense would obviously be: Trump made the call, the GA Sec of State rebuffed the call, the GA electoral votes were sent to Congress and were counted, so "no harm no foul." It's a bs argument in court, but it has some power in the court of public opinion.

23

Cicilline drafted an Article of Impeachment based on Trump's January 6th conduct and what the seditionists did in the Capitol. He *only* used the January 2nd call to demonstrate a pattern of conduct pointing to overall ill intent, but not as the "high crime or misdemeanor"

24

Omar's use of the January 2nd call as one of the high crimes and misdemeanors is pretty weak tea, given what occurred in the last impeachment. It's a grave abuse of power, no doubt, but - in legal proceedings - you always learn from weaknesses of earlier strategy & change.

25