[onenine]

She was granted immunity for testimony. Had she testified, instead of willfully ignoring the court, she would not have been held in contempt.

[TaylorAlexander]

Hadn’t she already given testimony on the subject in question? If I recall she refused to testify a second time because she had already done so.

[function_seven]

I don't see how that's relevant. Either she repeats the testimony she gave the first time around, or new questions are asked of her as a witness that weren't covered during the first testimony.

Either way, with immunity granted, there's no Fifth Amendment peril there.

[onenine]

My understanding is that she did not, though this gets way into the weeds of the military trial. I can try to dig this up if you're interested (been a couple years since I read about that particular facet).

She claimed a lot of legally nonsensical things on stand so I'm not sure any of it passed any scrutiny. It certainly didn't with the judge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/chelsea-m...