Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy (at National Review Online) and Randall Eliason (at National Public Radio) both tackle the topic of the "perjury trap," which has been in the news because President Trump's legal team cites it as a reason not to have Mr. Trump submit to an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller.
Even Eliason, who is dismissive of the "perjury trap" argument — "it doesn't apply here at all....it's all part of this defense tactic that's been on display for months now to try to undermine the Mueller investigation" — concedes "I think you'd have a hard time finding a criminal defense attorney who would recommend that the president sit for this interview as a legal matter." NPR doesn't follow-up by asking why those lawyers would give that advice, but surely the risk of getting caught in a false statement, intentional or unintentional, during the interview would be one reason to avoid it.
What we refer to as a "perjury" trap covers both perjury and false statements. The difference between the two is more form than substance. To oversimplify a bit, perjury is a lie under oath; a false statement or material omission is a lie told to government investigators when no oath has been administered; the potential sentence for both is zero to five years' imprisonment.