You think he lied again about what he recalled or did he decide he had better TELL THE TRUTH because all the other testimonies agreed but his and he was facing contempt of congress for lying under oath.
What would you do if that were you? Hold on to your original FALSE TESTIMONY that was refuted by others or "suddenly recall with extreme clarity" what really happened because you decided you had better TELL THE TRUTH OR ELSE? I don't get why anyone would not believe a restatement of a testimony to Congress UNDER OATH. What on earth would be the point of lying to congress UNDER OATH TWICE?
