good point. then the presumption piezoe was trying to stand upon would be rebutted. in fact worse... you can then conclude ...
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase meaning "false in one thing, false in everything." At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase meaning "false in one thing, false in everything." At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus
There is already evidence that his testimony isn't true when he stated that papers he created from business dealings were not fbi docs, but were just his own personal notes. That isn't true.
He tried to say that trump spoke to him about his investigation of flynn, and then turn around and claim it's just personal, non business memos he wrote about this discussions. It's ridiculous on it's face.
I'm afraid you're stuck with taking his word until there is evidence that his testimony under oath is not true. Statements under oath will always be considered to have more probity than speculation and opinion.