Did you not read the Judiciary Act again, capitan? The punishment for impeding the process of the federal judiciary is "at the discretion of said courts."
But none of the judges went so far as to hold the President in contempt of court. If they did, please show the citation.
Incorrect. They (1) ruled him to have illegally arrested the process of the court (which would qualify as a contempt of the court's authority) and (2) ruled him to have directly assumed the responsibility of Porter, who they had ruled in contempt of court. I've already given you the citation...twice...and you've chosen to ignore it...twice.
List for me the felonies (high crimes) Lincoln committed.
First off, the terms "felony" and "high crime," though related, are NOT interchangably synonymous. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is to be read as a phrase having come from a similar phrase in English common law, not in its subdivided parts. As for the high crimes and misdemeanors he committed, they are found in his willful arrest and obstruction of the legal processes of the federal judiciary.
You have only posted your interpretation, twice.
As it was, there was no legal process to "illegally arrest." None of those federal judges had the appropriate jurisdiction.
"As for the high crimes and misdemeanors he committed, they are found in his willful arrest and obstruction of the legal processes of the federal judiciary."
Your novel legal theories have been found wanting. Ride the dead horse if you wish, it is taking you nowhere? BTW, have you come up with an authoritative source who makes the same novel charges as you? If not, then why not?