The _actual_ wording of 18 USC § 1001 is "[...] knowingly and willfully" "(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; [...]" [0], not simply "providing false statements."
The DOJ must show that the statement was false, the fact is material to the case, that you knew it was false when you made it, and that it does not fall under the exceptions carved out by DOJ policy [1]. That is very different from what you're claiming.
In your example, the rain on Thursday must actually be important to the case and you must knowingly be attempting to deceive the federal investigators. Your honest-but-wrong answer does not mean you are now able to be charged with providing false statements to a federal criminal investigator under 18 USC § 1001.
0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
1: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-42000-fraud-against-the-gove...
The folks who have do not carry a fear of prosecution because they can afford to remove themselves from any danger. However; those who do not, suffer under the obfuscated rules of law.
Beyond identifying yourself to LEOs, Don't Talk To The Police [0] without your lawyer present.
The threat of legal action alone is enough to scare _most_ people in this country because they simply can't afford it.
Great writeup on the topic
Remember, they only have to 'win' once, you have to 'win' every time.
The only times I've ever seen this card played is as punishment for deliberately misleading agents and wasting their time, not getting inconsequential facts wrong.
...like the high-profile Gabby Petito murder case, where Brian Laundrie's parents lied to investigators to conceal their son's whereabouts after the murder. Or that other recent one where a woman faked her own kidnapping and started a national manhunt for herself and her nonexistent kidnappers.
There's also the matter that FBI policy is NOT to record interviews, so there's only an FD-302 saying you lied and nobody can see what you actually said, only what the FBI heard.
One of the comments points out that Martha Stewart was convicted for a basket of charges completely unrelated to the securities fraud that she was indicted for in the first place. Among them: two counts of lying to federal agents.
The FD-302 thing is nothing new; anybody adjacent to CPS or domestic violence will have seen the equivalent take place in therapists' offices. Client and/or therapist can rehearse abuse stories with no accountability whatsoever.
But how many times do they use it to control/ruin/subjugate people you and I have never heard of? Who speaks up for them?
https://thehill.com/homenews/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton...
Do you have any examples of laws about "giving false statements" to local police? Seems like a rather blatant 1st amendment violation.
It sure would be nice to live in a country where we could have reasonable certainty that agents of the people's collective will (government) would act in good faith, and were bound by reasonable laws ensuring so.
The actual wording/charge is "providing false statements", which means anything that they can later suggest is untrue.
This is why you should never, ever speak with anyone associated with the FBI even if they are being "friendly".
Say they knock at the door and have questions for you about your shady neighbor down the street. You're not the one under investigation, so what's the harm in talking to them right? Well officer friendly asks the innocuous question on if it was raining last thursday. You tell them that it was. As it turns out, it was not raining lat thursday and your honest-but-wrong answer means you are now able to be charged with "lying to the FBI".
In practice, they knew it wasn't raining last thursday and the question was a trap. By answering incorrectly officer friendly can then threaten to charge you at a later date, except there's an out! _You can become an informant!_. By agreeing to spy on your neighbor for the mafia they'll spare you federal inditement. You're now an "asset" that they can work for as long as they please and you have no legal recourse.