It is a technical term. All elements must be present: one must be under oath or an equivalent flag of seriousness, one must speak or write falsely, one must have intent, and the falsehood must be material to issues at trial (lying about something unimportant is not considered perjury, even under oath, for example, if one's age is immaterial to the trial).
I suppose that one could imagine someone meeting all those criteria but not being convictable, for some reason. It would be rare, but okay, I will accept that.
Witnesses differ on details all the time. One might accept the better attested account (although that is a matter of fact for the jury, which might deem the witnesses shady), and still be doubtful about intent. It looks to me that Bush did not have the requisite intent. I cannot, of course, be certain, but, as I said, I would not describe a casual, off- the- cuff exchange as a conversation myself....... |
