What she did was absolutely slimey and was clearly done under orders from the very top...but my guess is that she broke no law during that appearance.Of course I could be entirely wrong about the lawbreaking part.
I wouldn’t claim she broke the law by what she did.
I do think she breached a technicality that invalidates her ability to claim the 5th.
You can’t just testify about the parts you want to. If you testify at all, you open yourself up to being required to testify about everything.
I think she has to make some substantive statement about the subject material. Saying I am innocent, kind of, but not really. If she said I never gave an order to target, or I never knew of targeting, I think she would have waived. To say she waived would be so hyper technical, that a judge would not enforce it, he would err on the side of the person taking the 5th. They are two contradictory statements, I did not break the law, I will not testify because I may have broken the law and my statement my help convict me. But I don’t think anyone gets a whole lot of mileage out of this.