As we have all witnessed, lying under oath is only prosecutable if your lies are opposed to the narrative they are trying to paint. Also, is her testimony first hand "what I saw" or second hand "what she was told"?
To be honest, I think she fully understands the gravity of her Testimony today.
Second, I think she understands Perjury.
Third, She has great legal counsel who has covered every aspect of her testimony and the consequences of it if untrue.
Also, give the committee credit to know the difference in hearsay evidence and facts.
The Committee is piling up evidence and connecting the Dots. They already have the Limo event verified to and under oath by the occupants of the Limo minus Trump. I don't think that they will refute her testimony.
I am not calling you out, but am questioning why you would make a statement trying to paint this in a different light. This is not an episode of Matlock or Law & Order.
It is a real event with the DOJ testimony, an aide to the Chief of Staff, financial documents, Video evidence, taped phone conversations, first hand witnesses, and lawyers testifying before a Congressional Committee on the World Stage with More to Come. Sometimes People tell the truth especially when their butts are on the line and they have no fear in doing so.
Nail by Nail.