Gov therfore must identify which statement was false, unlike in 1623. Def thought he had no bank account, but he really did. When asked if he did he said yes in attempt to decieve. No, technically he made a truthful statement even though he intended to lie. Actual effect not required.
Materiality is matter of law.
Answer that is literally true but not responsive or possibly misleading to question asked, is not subject to fed perjury prosecution. Def attorney's job to question further when def evades, don't want to discourage testifying by going after possible witness misunderstanding. Precident reflects desire to narrowly constue perjury statute. Section 2 applies generally to all Fed crimes. Section 2 operates to unite intermediary innnocent third party's capacity to commit perjury with def's intent that perjury be committed.