"Horowitz added that he has never “seen an alteration of an email end up impacting a court document like this.”
“If a private citizen did that in any law enforcement investigation, if they fabricated evidence and reversed what it said, in your experience,” Cruz then posed. “Would that private citizen be prosecuted for fabricating evidence, be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, be prosecuted for perjury?”
"Horowitz stated that “they certainly would be considered for that if there was an intentional effort to deceive the court.”
But, they may be immune from 18 USC 1001, look at this section (b):
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
"Horowitz added that he has never “seen an alteration of an email end up impacting a court document like this.”
“If a private citizen did that in any law enforcement investigation, if they fabricated evidence and reversed what it said, in your experience,” Cruz then posed. “Would that private citizen be prosecuted for fabricating evidence, be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, be prosecuted for perjury?”
"Horowitz stated that “they certainly would be considered for that if there was an intentional effort to deceive the court.”
The standard is “knowingly”, not “intent”.
But, they may be immune from 18 USC 1001, look at this section (b):
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
Would this qualify as a judicial proceeding though?