PERJURY TRAP
“The whole idea is basically the prosecutorial equivalent of digging a hole, putting some twigs and leaves over it and saying, `Come on, come on, come on, walk this way,”’ a former prosecutor said.
Perjury traps have become a popular tactic among independent counsels: if they can’t prove the alleged crime they were appointed to investigate, they indict suspects for lying to investigators. But the traps are effective only because independent counsels have succeeded over the past few decades in expanding the lying laws far beyond their historical roots.
It’s actually worse than what we think of as perjury.
In a court of law you must be found to have lied about something material to “the case” to be charged with perjury.
Conversely, there is no such standard for lying to a federal agent. The FBI can conduct a fishing expedition over the course of five interviews, they might discover an inconsistency that is completely irrelevant to the case and you can still be charged.
Let’s say your a witness to a drive-by shooting on the corner of Broadway and First Street. In court your asked where I was coming from. You lie and say you had been at a work meeting, when you were actually having an interlude with your mistress. That’s not perjury in court, because it’s not material to your testimony about what you saw. However, that is more than enough for the FBI to charge you, even though it’s not remotely or in any way material to what happened on the corner of Broadway and First Street.