I have absolutely no clue. But that's a weird one, especially since it never resulted in any kind of fall-out either way. You'd take that those accusations would not be left to stand without a solid rebuttal.
...unless they were very obviously made up and the person making them of little public importance, in which case it would probably be more damaging to even acknowledge them as being worth discussion.
That was testimony under oath. If it was false testimony the penalties would be grave which somewhat reduces the chances of it being 'obviously made up'.
Of note, her allegation regarding blackmailing a congresswoman was against Turkish agents whom the FBI was wiretapping, not the FBI themselves. In her deposition she specifically says
> [...] information was being collected for blackmail purposes, and her lesbian relationship, and they, the Turkish entities, wanted both congressional related favoritism from her, but also her husband was in a high position in the area in the state she was elected from, and these Turkish entities ran certain illegal operations, and they wanted her husband's help. But I don't know if she provided them with those. I left. I was terminated.
The penalties for lying under oath are usually anything but grave. Moreover: to punish her, the state has to prove that she knowingly lied. But I believe she believes what she's saying. That doesn't mean she's right.
