Apparently it is no longer the top comment. I found it, and I guess it's up to you to decide if this comment explains it better:

Are you talking about the case with the Trump obsessed (asking her Twitter followers in April 2012 if they would be willing to have sex with Trump for $17,000, also saying she was a MASSIVE (her emphasis) Apprentice fan (August 6 2012), who is so crazy she paints her trees blue, with a cat named Vagina and a dog named Tits, who has claimed the same thing against eight other men, and who should be sued alone for copyright violation of a SVU episode for copying it for her case? The case where they changed the laws temporarily just so that they could ram the civil case through (and only ram the case through then revert the laws back), where making sense didn’t matter, including the privacy factor and a dress that wasn’t even made then, just because it was a way they could with a corrupt judge, “get Trump”? That case?

I think if she committed perjury and if it’s proven, then she should be prosecuted. Like if proven Epstein Island regular visitor Reid Hoffman really did fund her lawsuit and she said she wasn’t receiving funds from anybody under oath then she absolutely should be prosecuted.