According to Rudy Guiliani, Fox News, and the alt-right, a “perjury-trap question” is a real thing, and it’s not good. It’s a trap, a devious trick sprung on innocent people by super smart, slick prosecutors and special counsels. To hear them tell it, these questions are so cunning that they can force blameless folks to lie and give the prosecutors—who are supposed to go after criminals but instead, according to the alt-right, spent most of their time trying to trip up Republicans—the grounds to send them to jail.

“Perjury-trap question” is now a term in the political lexicon. You can’t watch cable news for two minutes without hearing some talking head discussing “perjury-trap questions” as if they were a legitimate subject. They’re not.

This seems to beg another one of those basic civics lessons about something that we all thought was common knowledge until we were all propelled into Trumpworld in 2016.

PERJURY is what is real. Perjury is making an intentionally false statement, either spoken or in writing, that could affect the outcome of a proceeding.

Because perjury can sabotage legal cases, especially when capital punishment is a possible outcome, it has always been a serious crime in the United States. In the early days of our nation, penalties for perjury included death, banishment, and cutting out the liar’s tongue.

Such lies often follow a question, but the question is not the issue. The issue is whether the person who answers a question under oath tells the truth or not.

People become perjurers not because of the questions they are asked or by underhanded prosecutorial black magic. They become perjurers when evidence from other sources is presented that proves that what they said was untrue.

So dodging “perjury-trap questions” is not a problem for a witness under oath because there is no such thing. They are just questions.

Faulty memory is not perjury. Perjury requires willful intent.

Inconsequential false statements, even if there was intent, do not result in perjury charges. If Trump was to lie under oath about his hair or his age, a greased slide won’t open up under the witness seat to take him to Perjury Land. The lie has to be a conscious one, and it has to be about something that could change the decision of the judge or the jury.

A titanic myth at the center of this “perjury trap” is that it infers that Mueller is focused on nailing Trump as a perjurer. This is that notion, again, that evil prosecutors can get innocent people to lie. Mueller has much bigger fish to fry. He is investigating whether Trump worked with the Russians to rig the election and whether Trump has obstructed justice. Trump has much bigger charges to fear than a perjury rap.

If Mueller is supposedly setting a perjury trap, he is doing a really, really poor job of it. He has been negotiating with Trump’s lawyers for months on getting Trump to answer questions. He even gave Trump the questions IN ADVANCE. He’s offered to allow Trump to submit written (by whom?) answers if he can ask follow-up questions. Worst entrapment scheme ever!

Trump’s lawyers have responded that the President should not be asked questions about possible obstruction of justice.

Here are those questions that Mueller wants to ask Trump about possible obstruction of justice:

• What is your knowledge of calls that Gen. Flynn made with [former Russian ambassador Sergei] Kislyak late December 2016?
• What is your reaction to press accounts Jan. 12, 2017, Feb. 8-9 2017?
• What did you think and what did you know regarding Sally Yates’ meetings on Jan 26-27 regarding Gen. Flynn?
• How was the decision made to request the resignation of Gen. Flynn on Feb. 13?
• What was the purpose of the meeting with James Comey on Feb. 14 after the Homeland Security briefing?
• What did you say to Comey about Gen. Flynn?
• What did you think and what did you do about the Comey June 8, 2017 testimony regarding Gen. Flynn?
• After Gen. Flynn resigned, what calls or efforts were made by people associated with you to reach out to Gen. Flynn or to discuss Flynn seeking immunity or possible pardon?
• What was the President’s view of James Comey during the Transition with respect to job performance?
• What did the President think and do in reaction to James Comey’s briefing on January 6, including the intelligence community assessment?
• What was the President’s reaction to Comey when they met alone regarding what they called other ICA matters (the Steele Dossier)? Also, what was discussed [regarding] ancillary reports?
• What was the purpose of the Jan. 27 dinner meeting you had with Comey?
• Was loyalty discussed? Did you communicate with Comey concerning his status at the end of the dinner? What was your knowledge of the Gen. Flynn and Russia investigation in days leading up to the March 20 testimony of Comey before House Intel Committee?
• What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the Comey testimony on March 20 before House Intel Committee?
• Describe outreach to Intel chiefs [Mike] Rogers, [Mike] Pompeo, and [Dan] Coates?
• What did you say to them?
• What was the purpose of the reach-out on March 22, 25 and 27?
• What was the purpose of your calls to Comey on March 30 and April 11?
• What was the purpose of your statement to Maria Bartiromo on April 11, 2017?
• What did you think and what did you do regarding the May 3 Comey testimony before the Senate Intel Committee?
• Regarding the decision to terminate Comey, when was it made, why was it made, who on your staff played a role in decision, and how was it determined to make it public?
• What did you mean to communicate during your May 10 meeting with Kislyak and [Sergey] Lavrov (concerning ‘pressure off’ and ‘nutcase’)?
• What did you mean regarding your statements to Lester Holt regarding Comey and Russia?
• What was the purpose of May 12 tweet that Comey better hope there are no tapes?
• What was the purpose of the September and October press statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Comey? Also, Sarah Sanders statements regarding same?
• What did you think and what did you do regarding AG Sessions recusal?
• What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind and reverse?
• Did you have a discussion about whether the AG was going protect him and reference other AG’s?
• What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the Special Counsel? – Including your reaction to AG Session’s resignation?
• What was the purpose of holding AG Sessions resignation until May 31 and with whom did you discuss it?
• What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the June 20, 2017 determination that the SC was speaking to Rogers, Pompeo and Coates?
• What consideration and discussion did you have regarding terminating the Special Counsel in June of 2017?
• What did you think and do in reaction to January 25, 2018 story about the termination of the Special Counsel and Don [McGahn] backing you off of the termination?
• What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation?
• With whom did you discuss obtaining the AG’s resignation?
• What was the purpose of the public criticism of Sessions via tweets during July 2017?
• What was the reason for your continued criticism of Comey and McCabe, even till today?

No tricks or traps here. Every one of these questions is an entirely predictable query that goes to the heart of determining whether Trump has obstructed justice. Many are based on Trump’s own words, and they are all focused on Trump’s own actions.

The Trump legal team and Fox News aren’t worried about “perjury-trap questions.” They are worried, with damn good reason, because their guy is incapable of telling the truth. About anything. Given that remarkable fact, ANY question posed to Trump under oath is literally a “perjury-generating question”—not because of the trickiness of the question, but because the answer will come directly out of that “truth-free zone” that is Trump’s mouth and mind.