That's exactly why she did it, and this last statement of hers corroborates it. She did it at the behest of the lawyers of the subject of an investigation so that their clients and possible witnesses could coordinate their testimony. This at the very least obstruction of justice.
Coordination sounds correct, especially since the testimony was not under oath.
Is it still perjury if it's not under oath?
I'll have to toss that one out to real attorneys. Normally no, I believe, but I am told that there are conditions under which even unsworn testimony is subject to that charge, and I don't know if this is one of them. FReeper lawyers?