So you are showing in Blackstone (without lying, misquoting, or abusing the text, of which someone has I think been accusing you) that the general category of offenses against the state, which we are invited to understand are the "high Crimes" the Constitution refers to, includes the specific crime of perjury for which William Jefferson Clinton was impeached.
Perjury about his mores, perjury about a girl, perjury about a dress.......and all committed to frustrate a lawsuit. I think the resolving power of your analysis and the stature of your source should satisfy the candor of your interlocutors.
Precisely. As garbage_truck has been informed, to quote Blackstone as evidence against Clinton's impeachment is to commit a fraud. It is a fraud because Blackstone specifically and explicitly defined perjury as a crime against the state. When one considers Blackstone himself and not what some law students at Brigham Young selectively quote from him, there is no way around this fact. Yet if you look to garbage_truck's posts, he persists in posting the willful misquotes from BYU while simultaneously refusing the actual text of Blackstone. Thus he is assisting in fraud.
But don't admit him or anyone on the wlat brigade to admit that anytime soon. Though they are less inclined to advertise it than with Lincoln, BJ Clinton is another of their secular saints. Thus any act of defense for him, no matter how fraudulent and dishonest it may be, is permissable to achieve the end of upholding his "image."