One of the reasons put forward by the Republicans and the press for Trump shoving Noem (the dog killer) aside is his statement to the effect that she lied about the 200 and some odd million dollar anti-immigrant ad campaign she has waged, with, I would guess, a lot of those funds going to people whose names shall not be divulged. She claimed in recent testimony that Trump had approved of the ads, and he claimed he knew nothing about them, which of course would, as has been pointed out by some, mean that she committed perjury when so testifying. As Digby points out here, (the quote is from a Rolling Stone article) she made the same sort of statement a year ago without Trump taking issue with it:
Noem said that Trump instructed that he didn’t want to be in the ads himself, telling her: “I want you in the ads, and I want your face in the ads … but I want the first ad, I want you to thank me. I want you to thank me for closing the border.” She recalled: “I said, ‘Yes, sir, I will thank you for closing the border.’ So if you notice, in that ad, we thanked him for closing the border.”
Far be it from me to say that Noem has never committed perjury, though she does tend to avoid doing so by simply refusing to answer questions. For instance, is she having sex with Corey Lewandoski, who she hired as highly paid aide? When asked if she was in fact having an affair with him, which raises obvious ethical questions, she responded:
Mr. Chairman, I am shocked that we are going down and peddling tabloid garbage in this committee today,” she replied.
She delivered similar responses to follow up questions.
But, even if the Democrats take over completely in 2028 (no way Pam Bondi will bring charges, after all) I would hesitate to bring perjury charges against her for claiming that Trump knew about the ad campaign. Can you imagine the field day her lawyer would have if the prosecution relied, as it would have to do, on Trump’s testimony to the effect that he knew nothing about it? I suppose that after he was confronted with several thousand of his own lies the judge might have to call a stop to it, and just dismiss the case. Not only would they fail to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, they couldn’t even prove it by a preponderance of the evidence (the civil standard) or establish probable cause (the even lower standard for bringing a case in the first place). In fact, assuming we’re talking about a post Trump era, the case would likely never get to trial, as it would be dismissed early on if the only evidence the prosecution had was the testimony of a constant liar.
But, then again, Noem wouldn’t get off scot free. She’s committed perjury on other occasions, and also broke a lot of other laws in the course of establishing a fascist state in this country.

