Perjury in a matter unrelated to his public office is not a reason for impeachment. But perjury during your confirmation hearings? I think that’s a clear example of unfitness for the office, which is grounds for impeachment.
Since I feel you are dredging up the ghost of Bill Clinton’s impeachment and the whole crap about what a “High Crime” is, I’ll just cut to the source:
Federalist Papers 65 says:
“A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
And from wikipedia, here is the historical reference.
"The impeachment of the King’s Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge. One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a promise to Parliament. He had promised to follow the advice of a committee regarding improvement of the kingdom. Another charge said that he failed to pay a ransom for the town of Ghent, and because of that the town fell to the French.
The 1450 impeachment of William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk, a descendant of Michael’s, was next to allege charges under this title. He was charged with using his influence to obstruct justice, cronyism, and wasting public money. Other charges against him included acts of high treason.
Impeachment fell out of use after 1459 but Parliament revived it in the early 17th century to bring the King’s ministers to book. In 1621, Parliament impeached the King’s Attorney General, Sir Henry Yelverton for high crimes and misdemeanors. The charges included failing to prosecute after starting lawsuits and using authority before it was properly his.
After the Restoration the scope of the charge grew to include negligence, and abuse of power or trust while in office. For example, charges in the impeachment of Edward Russell, 1st Earl of Orford in 1701 included many violations of trust and his position. In this case, he abused his position in the Privy Council to make profits for himself; as Treasurer of the Navy he embezzled funds; and as Admiral of the Fleet he got a commission for the pirate William Kidd."
The 1990s impeachment created a false sense of confusion as to the meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That phrase was a well known legal term of art used in the English legal system to mean offenses against a public office: failure to carry out the duties of the office, abuse of power, violation of the oath of office, unfitness for duty.
Also, lastly, dude you started this. As to Bill Clinton paying “a small fine” for perjury, it was $90,000 and he was also disbarred. So, whatever.
