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.

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...