then she not only lied about it under oath, she got one of her employees to lie as well
To be exact she lied not under oath. If she said exactly what she was convicted of saying she lied by omission (which both morally is lying, and legally is a crime - deliberate deception meeting both moral and legal standards). But our knowledge of what was said comes from a notebook scribbled by interviewer. No third party, no tape recording. I really think conviction for something like this should require more stringent evidence than taking an interested party's word. I'm not really sympathetic to Stewart because on the whole I suspect she did exactly what she was convicted of. But I'm troubled by how weak the evidence on which someone can be convicted for this. Then again I remember lobbying alongside an ACLU lawyers against the criminal code reform which included this provision specifically on grounds that this sort of thing was likely to happen.