I am just guessing here… but why contempt. Are there any lawfags to make more sense of this?
Contempt of Congress is different to contempt of court.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/fifth.pdf
Instead of rejecting a witness’s Fifth amendment assertion, a committee could instead seek an immunity order, thereby
requiring the witness to testify.
Under such an order, a witness is required to testify, however, consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s protections, the compelled testimony, and any evidence derived from that testimony, may not be used against the witness “in any respect” in a subsequent criminal prosecution, except one for perjury, false statement, or contempt relating to the testimony. While the witness may still be convicted of a crime based on other evidence “
wholly independent of the compelled testimony
,” the existence of immunized testimony can take such prosecutions more challenging. Given this risk, a committee must carefully balance its need for the witness’s testimony against the possibility that immunized testimony could jeopardize the success of future criminal prosecutions.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-contempt-of-congress-as-opposed-to-contempt-of-court-in-terms-of-Michael-Flynn-invoking-the-5th
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/334637-if-flynn-does-plead-the-fifth-will-congress-hold-him-in