> This doesn’t even factor in any of the parallel construction conspiracies.

Parallel construction isn't a conspiracy. It is a legitimate investigative technique. For example if you have an undercover agent inside a motorcycle gang who tips you off about who murdered someone, you investigate and build a pattern of facts that proves who did it but does not draw a line to your source so they can continue to provide actionable intelligence.

The exact method by which his identity was discovered isn't public knowledge, but how it happened isn't groundbreaking (or unlawful) either. Think of it like a famous magician showing you how their trick is performed, you might be technically impressed - but you're still going to be underwhelmed compared to what it might have been.

Parallel construction may be a "legitimate investigative technique", but when it gets to court it is perjury, plain and simple.

> but when it gets to court it is perjury, plain and simple.

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed in Bronston v. United States.

I'm not aware of the Supreme Court having authority over the dictionary though.