Now the big issue is whether the circumstantial ad hominem (or possibly the other forms as well) is the same thing as argument from commitment, or whether they are two different types of argument.
It would appear that it can also be classified as an instance of the circumstantial ad hominem argument.
It would seem then that, at least on the basis of this brief outline of what is taken to be its main structure, Rogan's argument fits into the form of argument identified above as that of the circumstantial ad hominem. But is this circumstantial ad hominem argument really the argument that Rogan is putting forward in the impeachment trial?
Some may be inclined to doubt, for example, that Rogan really meant to make a circumstantial ad hominem type of argument.
So Rogan's argument is not really a circumstantial ad hominem after all.
The Clinton position, on the whole, is open to circumstantial ad hominem attack, because of the strong stand taken in the past by the Clinton administration on cases of a sexual relationship between someone in a position of power and someone in a position of dependency on that power.