Sez who? I've shown on several different levels, how opposition to the Clinton impeachment is based on a more restrictive interpretation than your own. Your only response has been to retreat to Blackstone's Commentaries and act as if it has precedence over the US Constitution.
Do I have to remind you who introduced Blackstone into this conversation? [Hint: it wasn't you].
You posted a second hand excerpt of a law article that invoked Blackstone's name along side claims of defense for Clinton.
No, I posted a link to the Brigham Young University Federalist Society , which did a comprehensive treatment of the Consititutional issues surrounding the Clinton Impeachment. Read on, you might learn something.
[exerpt]
"In an attempt to facilitate a further airing of the public d ebate of the issues presented by the Clinton impeachment proceedings and Senate trial, the Brigham Young University Chapter of the Federalist Society sponsored a discussion by a panel of four of the prominent players in the proceedings.
The panel, convened at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School on April 2, 1999, consisted of four individuals who performed frontline roles in the Clinton trial:
Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, who sat in judgment of the President during the Senate trial; Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah, who prosecuted the President as one of the House Managers in the Senate trial; Attorney Gregory Craig, who was retained as Special White House Impeachment Counsel shortly before the House impeached the President and who headed up the President’s defense team during the Senate trial; and Senate Legal Counsel Thomas Griffith, who helped moderate and establish the trial procedures used by the Senate in the trial."
Is it possible these people might know something about Clinton Impeachment that you don't? [Hint: You bet your ass they do]
As I have both noted and demonstrated, to invoke Blackstone while claiming that perjury is not impeachable is to willfully defraud a reader.
Once again, Blackstone was invoked only to demonstrate that the word 'high' as a restrictive qualifier on the construct "crimes and misdemeanors" has a foundation in English Common law. Everything else you claim was said regarding Blackstone is made of straw.