Those who have been reading my posts and comments no doubt have the impression that I am persuaded by Professor Alan Dershowitz’s arguments about the standard for impeachment. That is, that impeachment should only be brought when the President has committed treason, bribery, or another crime defined in the statute where the people and the public are the victims of that crime (as opposed to a crime flowing from conduct with one or more identifiable persons who are the victims of the offense). Dershowitz argues that to have a lesser standard is to not put on notice the president as to what conduct is impeachable. (Pat Philbin supplemented Dershowitz’s presentation this morning by analogizing the “non-crime” standard as being equivalent to a constitutionally prohibited Bill of Attainder.)

Professor Ann Althouse has considered Dershowitz’ presentation and has posted as follows:

I don’t begrudge anyone a belief that much of Donald Trump’s manner can be off-putting (to put it gently). Nor was I ready in January 2017 to debate those who believed Donald Trump’s temperament might make for an unsuccessful tenure in the White House.

However, a personal aversion to Donald Trump was never a justification for believing (wishing) that he was an agent of the Kremlin or that his election was the result of foreign malfeasance. We now know with certainty that those allegations were false and that Trump’s enemies in the federal government, Democratic Party and news media corruptly developed and promoted this false accusation to ruin an innocent man and destroy a duly-elected president.

I watched the trial today. I started on Fox but by about 8 p.m., I switched to CSPAN2. Fox was interrupting with handoffs between shows and other news. I am sure it was important to many viewers, but I was trying to listen carefully to the president’s defenders.

Starr was good, Dershowitz was great. Philbin did an outstanding job of previewing the clusterfark coming if the Senate decides to call Bolton/Mulvaney or anyone else subject to Executive Privilege. I hope Romney/Collins got the message. Don’t think they have, yet. But McConnell did because if they go down that road the Senate will be in session through the Convention this summer.

While in one breath decrying the divisiveness that has infected our politics and criticizing our President’s role in breeding that anger, we have this from over the weekend on CNN’s evening show with Don Lemon,

The arrogance, the dismissiveness, the smug cackling, the accents.

If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I’ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened. pic.twitter.com/8kQ6zN9AZV

— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) January 28, 2020

Taz Venegas was a quiet guy, mostly. He had a great sense of humor and was well-liked, but few thought of him as a great leader among the officers in the squadron. Marines are a cult of leadership, and although I have joined in that cult and studied and discussed the topic ad nauseam all my adult life, I confess I still don’t know what qualities make a man a great leader.

We were in an A-6 squadron and it was the very early 1990s. Our squadron was designated to transition to the F/A-18D, and along with that change that we would no longer have the mission to deliver nuclear weapons. The Marines didn’t want nukes in any unit anymore, and the A-6 was one of the last methods left to use them. But before we got rid of our nukes, we had one last Nuclear Technical Proficiency Inspection (NTPI). Somehow Taz was tapped to be in charge, a choice that surprised most of us because the NTPI was an extremely high profile and very difficult inspection, and Taz was not among the favored sons among the air crew. Taz was a quiet guy.

I think we can all agree that today’s 18-year-olds are not as adult or responsible as the 18-year-olds of the 1930s, ’40s, ’50s or even the ’80s. Today’s 18-year-olds often do not have driver’s licenses, have not held a single job, do not pay their own bills, and have little experience supporting themselves by doing laundry or cooking meals. Years ago, at 18, these young adults held down jobs or went to college and studied. Some of them got married and started families.

I would propose the following: we move the drinking and smoking age to 18. We move the voting age to at least 21, if not 25 (when people are out of college). This would give people more time to grow up, since they apparently need it, and would save them from the consequences of their under-developed brains’ machinations. Let’s move adulthood to 25. The FAFSA already holds a parent’s income against a student until age 24 or unless married, has a dependent of their own, or is in the service. Let’s take the next logical step.