House Democrats are ready to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after the Department of Justice failed to deliver an unredacted copy of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Jerrod Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has set a Wednesday vote for lawmakers to hold Barr in contempt of Congress, saying the Attorney General’s failure to comply with a subpoena calling for the full, unredacted Mueller report left the Committee with “no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings.” Barr has objected to releasing the full report over rules that prevent him from giving material related to grand jury testimony to Congress. While the Justice Department has offered to make available a less redacted version to Congress than the one already made public, Democrats have argued that they should be allowed to see the full report.

As a growing number of Democrats have come out against Barr’s handling of the Mueller report, the party is now taking steps to charge the Attorney General. Here’s what to know about contempt of Congress and how it works.

How do lawmakers hold someone in contempt of Congress?

The House or Senate can draw up contempt of Congress citations in instances where their subpoenas are denied. A statute on the criminal contempt of Congress holds that anyone who “willfully” fails to comply with a subpoena is committing a misdemeanor, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.

Upon issuing the citation, the power to prosecute the individual goes to the executive branch, the report says. Congress can alternatively file a civil suit to enforce a subpoena.

A vote to hold Barr in contempt of Congress is likely to succeed on the floor, since Democrats control the lower chamber. The case would then be sent to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia or the Department of Justice to pursue criminal charges. But it is unlikely that a federal prosecutor would bring charges against their own boss, a former member of a House counsel office tells TIME.

Why do Democrats want to hold Barr in contempt?

The move by Democrats to hold Barr in contempt of Congress marks the first time they have set out to punish an official with the Trump Administration for failing to comply with subpoena requests.

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will vote to hold Barr in contempt over his refusal to turn over an unredacted version of the Mueller report. Democrats argue that a full copy of the report will assist them in their push for an investigation into whether Trump abused the powers of his office.

“Access to these materials is essential to the Committee’s ability to effectively investigate possible misconduct, and consider appropriate legislative, oversight, or other constitutionally warranted responses,” the contempt report states. “Attorney General Barr’s refusal to comply with the Committee’s subpoena or to engage in a meaningful accommodations process therefore continues to thwart the Committee’s ability to fulfill its responsibilities.”

What are the consequences of being held in contempt?

Under the contempt of Congress statute, a person found guilty of “willfully” failing to comply with a subpoena can be punished with imprisonment for up to one year and a maximum $1,000 fine.

But it is unlikely that Barr will face criminal charges because neither a U.S. attorney nor the Department of Justice are expected to go forward in prosecuting the Attorney General, according to veterans of congressional investigations. A former counsel for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tells TIME that failing criminal prosecution, Congress is likely to try to enforce the subpoena through a civil suit. What will happen next is unclear.

“They may have to get the House to vote on contempt, file this case as well, and then we will see what happens,” the former counsel to Pelosi says. “The political pressure may be such because every poll we’ve seen shows the public is tremendously in favor of transparency.” A PBS News Hour/NPR/Marist poll found in March that about three-quarters of people said the full report should be released.

In the past, the House has also used the no rarely invoked “inherent contempt” method. Lawmakers technically have the power to arrest and detain people who refuse to comply with subpoena requests, according to the Congressional Research Service. It’s an option that gives broader powers than the criminal contempt statute because it can also be used in response to actions that are seen as “obstructing” Congress’s legislative power.

Lawmakers have largely abandoned the practice of using the “inherent contempt” option since the 1930s, but they still have the right to detain a person in an effort to speed up their access to the requested information.

When has this happened before?

Only one sitting Attorney General has been held in contempt of Congress. A Republican-controlled House held Attorney General Eric Holder, who served during the Obama Administration, in contempt of Congress in 2012 over his failure to provide documents for a congressional inquiry into an operation called “Fast and Furious,” a failed program run by an Arizona division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives which allowed guns to be sold to Mexican drug gang members. </s> WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to recommend that the House hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over Robert S. Mueller III’s unredacted report, hours after President Trump asserted executive privilege to shield the full report and underlying evidence from Congress.

The committee’s 24-to-16 contempt vote, taken after hours of debate over the future of American democracy, was the first official House action to punish a government official in the standoff over the Mueller report. The Justice Department denounced the move as unnecessary and intended to stoke a fight.

After the vote, the Judiciary Committee chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, swatted away questions about possible impeachment, but added, “We are now in a constitutional crisis.”

The contempt vote raised the stakes in the battle over evidence and witnesses as Democrats investigate Mr. Trump over behavior detailed by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in his report into Russian election interference and possible obstruction of justice. By the day’s end, it seemed all but inevitable that the competing claims would have to be settled in the nation’s courts rather than on Capitol Hill. </s> • The House Judiciary Committee voted on Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over an unredacted copy of Robert Mueller’s final report on Russian interference.
• Barr provided a partially redacted copy to the public and made multiple attempts to allow certain Democrats to view the report at the Justice Department, but they refused.
• If the contempt charges advance, Barr could face lofty fines or even jail time.
• The last attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress was Eric Holder in 2012 during the Obama administration, but the charges were ultimately tossed out.

WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, a severe penalty for refusing to comply with requests to hand over an unredacted copy of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report in the Russia investigation and its underlying evidence.

The vote fell along party lines at 24 to 16, as Democrats move forward with a multitude of sprawling inquiries into President Donald Trump and his administration.

Contempt of Congress is a serious charge, which can later result in a criminal referral to a US attorney. Though rare, if sought all the way through, maximum penalties can include either a $100,000 fine or one year in jail.

Democrats took the first formal step toward holding Barr in contempt of Congress on Monday. On Tuesday, the Justice Department fired back by threatening to advise President Donald Trump to invoke executive privilege over Mueller’s report in light of Democrats’ actions.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler responded by describing the Justice Department’s threat as “without credibility, merit, or legal or factual basis.”

Read more: Being held in contempt of Congress is one of the most severe punishments on Capitol Hill. Here’s what such a move could mean.

The markup hearing lasted nearly seven hours, during which Republicans and Democrats went back and forth over the merits of holding Barr in contempt.

Republicans like Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, characterized the contempt effort as “a character assassination” and cited opposition to obtaining an unredacted copy of the Mueller report because it would be leaked to the press within 48 hours.

Democrats suggested it was about transparency and getting to the bottom of what has been a long and tumultuous investigation.

While many Democrats said they were just trying to get to the truth, some continued to bring up the issue of impeaching President Donald Trump, something Democrats have been at odds with one another about for some time.

“This committee, to ensure that we get that report because we have lawful responsibilities – constitutional responsibilities – to engage in. One of which is possibly impeachment,” said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia. “How can we impeach without getting the documents?”

Barr released a partially redacted copy of Mueller’s report in April, but Democrats were unsatisfied and demanded to view the report in full. While Barr had initially offered to provide a copy with even fewer redactions for Democrats to view, they declined.

Tensions between Barr and congressional Democrats have been high for months, but they kicked up a notch in the weeks leading up to the release of the Mueller report.

After Mueller turned in his final report in the Russia probe to Barr in March, the attorney general moved to release a summary of his “principal conclusions” of Mueller’s findings to Congress and the public before making the report available. In the summary, Barr said Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to bring a conspiracy charge against Trump or anyone on his campaign.

Read more: Barr admitted he didn’t look at the underlying evidence before concluding Trump didn’t obstruct justice in the Russia probe

Barr also said Mueller declined to make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” on whether Trump obstructed justice. The attorney general went on to say prosecutors laid out evidence on “both sides” of the issue and did not come to a conclusion because of “difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.”

But when the Justice Department finally released a redacted version of the report – which featured a roadmap of evidence against Trump and 11 potential instances of obstruction of justice – Barr drew immediate backlash for what Democrats claimed was an effort to shield the president by watering down Mueller’s findings ahead of their release.

Read more: The White House is blocking Don McGahn from cooperating with Congress about the Mueller probe

Last week, Barr was set to appear before the House and Senate judiciary committees for back-to-back days of testimony about the Mueller report and his controversial decisions leading up to its release. Hours before he appeared before the Senate panel, it surfaced that Mueller wrote two letters expressing concerns to Barr about the way his findings had been portrayed by the attorney general.

After testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the letters and his oversight of the Russia probe, the Justice Department announced Barr would not appear before the House Judiciary Committee the next day.

The committee launched formal proceedings to hold him in contempt after he missed Monday’s deadline to turn over the unredacted Mueller report and its underlying evidence.

Read more: Over 370 former federal prosecutors say they would have charged Trump with obstruction if he wasn’t president

The last time Congress voted to hold an attorney general in contempt was in 2012, when Republicans were in the majority. Eric Holder, the then-Attorney General for the Barack Obama administration, had repeatedly refused to hand over documents pertaining to the “Fast and Furious” ATF gun walking scandal.

Holder’s contempt vote passed the House in a bipartisan fashion, with a handful of Democrats joining Republicans to punish the top law enforcement officer at the time. Ultimately, a federal judge tossed out the charges and Holder avoided severe penalties.

Other attempts to oust officials for not complying with Congress have taken different routes. During the Obama administration, a small contingent of Republicans repeatedly tried to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. They eventually failed and Koskinen finished his term several months into the Trump presidency. </s> A House committee is poised to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress — the opening salvo in what could be a lengthy, acrimonious court battle between House Democrats and President Donald Trump's administration over special counsel Robert Mueller's report .

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler scheduled a Wednesday vote to hold Barr in contempt of Congress, citing the Justice Department's failure to provide the full text of Mueller's report by the Monday morning deadline. Nadler, D-N.Y., said Barr's failure to comply with a subpoena left them with "no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings."

The movement to hold Barr in contempt reflects the deepening rift between Democrats and Barr, whom they accuse of spinning the results of Mueller's investigation to Trump's benefit. Barr, in a memo summarizing Mueller's investigation, said there was insufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice — a conclusion Democrats fiercely dispute.

Nadler said the version of Mueller's report that has already been released to the public offered "disturbing evidence and analysis that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels." Now, he said, lawmakers need the full version and the underlying evidence "to determine how to best move forward with oversight, legislation and other constitutional responsibilities."

The committee said contempt proceedings could be postponed if the attorney general makes a "good faith" effort to comply with the committee.

In a possible thaw, Nadler said Monday evening that the Justice Department had agreed to meet with his staff Tuesday, adding that he hopes to make "concrete progress" toward resolving the dispute.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said earlier that the department has "taken extraordinary steps to accommodate the House Judiciary Committee's requests for information" regarding Mueller's report, but that Nadler had not reciprocated. She noted that Democrats have refused to read a version of Mueller's report with fewer redactions that has already been provided to Congress.

Kupec said officials were continuing to engage with the committee, and Nadler's staff had been invited to the department "to discuss a mutually acceptable accommodation."

If the committee approves the contempt resolution against Barr, as expected, it would head to the full House for final approval. But that step is unlikely to lead to criminal charges. A House vote would send a criminal referral to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a Justice Department official who is likely to defend the attorney general.

Yet by pursuing contempt, Democrats hope to send a message to the Trump administration about their willingness to invoke congressional powers in the majority. Beyond Mueller's report, House Democrats have, so far mostly unsuccessfully, subpoenaed administration witnesses and made efforts to gain access to Trump's personal and business financial records. Trump has said he will block those efforts, declaring he will "fight all the subpoenas."

Democratic House leaders could file a civil lawsuit against the Justice Department to obtain the Mueller report, an option that could take months or even years to resolve. Some committee members have suggested they also could fine Barr as he withholds the information. They could also open impeachment proceedings against Trump, though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she's not interested in doing that, for now.

Republicans have lambasted the Democratic tactics as overreach and defended Barr. The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said "Democrats have launched a proxy war smearing the attorney general" when their anger actually lies with the president.

There is precedent for sitting attorneys general to be held in contempt of Congress. In 2012, the House held then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over a botched gun-tracking operation known as Fast and Furious. Republicans cited the Justice Department's failure to turn over, without any preconditions, documents related to the risky operation. The Justice Department took no action to prosecute the attorney general.

Mueller's report — now a best-seller even in redacted form — states that his investigation could not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump team and Russia. However, it did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice. Mueller didn't charge Trump but wrote that he couldn't exonerate him, either.

House Judiciary Democrats say Congress is "the only body able to hold the president to account" since the Justice Department has a policy against indicting a sitting president. They say they need the full report and the evidence that it cites, including witness interviews and "items such as contemporaneous notes." Nadler also wants every member of Congress to be able to read the full report.

As the fight with Barr has escalated, Democrats have been in negotiations to hear from Mueller himself. Trump complicated those talks Sunday by tweeting that he would oppose Mueller's testimony, reversing from his earlier position of leaving it up to Barr.

As long as Mueller remains a Justice Department employee, Trump or Barr could block him from appearing. Trump did not indicate if he would take steps to do so. It's unclear when Mueller will leave the department — or whether he would want to testify in his own capacity when he does. </s> The House Judiciary chairman said Wednesday the Trump administration's refusal to provide special counsel Robert Mueller's full Russia report to Congress presents a "constitutional crisis," leaving the panel no choice but to move forward with a contempt vote against Attorney General William Barr.

Talks with the Justice Department broke down late Tuesday over the committee's subpoena for an unredacted version of Mueller's report.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the dispute poses "a constitution crisis" because President Donald Trump "is disobeying the law, is refusing all information to Congress."

"We have no choice," Nadler told CNN, but to move forward on the contempt vote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed the chairman's decision. She suggested Democrats were surprised by the Justice Department's decision to threaten executive privilege to block the release as last-minute talks failed late Tuesday.

"We thought they'd just come back with a counteroffer," she said Wednesday during a Washington Post interview.

Pelosi said if the committee approves contempt resolution, as is expected, the "next step" would be eventual consideration by the full House.

Barr released a redacted version of Mueller's report to the public last month, but Democrats said they want to see the full document, along with underlying evidence, and subpoenaed the full report . The department has rejected that demand, while allowing a handful of lawmakers to view a version of Mueller's report with fewer redactions. Democrats have said they won't view that version until they get broader access.

The House Judiciary Committee and Justice Department negotiated into the evening Tuesday, trading offers on how many lawmakers would be able to view the report, how many staff members and whether the department would work with the committee to gain access to secret grand jury material. But those talks ultimately stalled.

In a letter sent late Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told Nadler that in the face of the committee's contempt vote, Barr would be "compelled to request that the president invoke executive privilege with respect to the materials subject to the subpoena."

It was not immediately clear how such a claim of privilege would work with respect to Mueller's report, which has already been released to the public in redacted form. Executive privilege is the president's power to keep information from the courts, Congress and the public to protect the confidentiality of the Oval Office decision-making process.

Nadler said in response to Boyd's letter to the committee that "this is, of course, not how executive privilege works."

"The Department seemed open to sharing these materials with us earlier today. The Department's legal arguments are without credibility, merit, or legal or factual basis," Nadler said.

The top Republican on the panel, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, sharply criticized the Democrats' plan to go ahead with the vote.

"I can't imagine a more illogical hill for a legislator to die on," Collins said in a statement.

If the committee holds Barr in contempt, it would be the first step in what could be a protracted, multipronged court battle between Congress and the Trump administration.

Trump has defied requests from House Democrats since the release of Mueller's report last month, and Democrats are fighting the White House on several fronts as they attempt to learn more about the report, call witnesses and obtain Trump's personal and financial documents.

In a related move, Nadler also threatened to hold former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress if he doesn't testify before the Judiciary committee later this month. Nadler rejected a White House claim that documents McGahn refused to provide despite a subpoena are controlled by the White House and thus McGahn has no legal right to them.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday's negotiations with Nadler's committee.

On Monday, when the Judiciary panel scheduled the vote, Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the department has "taken extraordinary steps to accommodate the House Judiciary Committee's requests for information" regarding Mueller's report, but that Nadler had not reciprocated. She noted that Democrats have refused to read the version of Mueller's report with fewer redactions that has been provided to Congress.

A contempt vote against Barr would head to the full House for a vote. If the House were to pass the resolution, it would send a criminal referral to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a Justice Department official who is likely to defend the attorney general.

Democratic House leaders could also file a lawsuit against the Justice Department to obtain the Mueller report, though the case could take months or even years to resolve. Some committee members have suggested they also could fine Barr as he withholds the information.

Republicans have largely united behind the president, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday declaring "case closed" on Mueller's Russia probe and potential obstruction by Trump. McConnell said Democrats are "grieving" the result.

Mueller said he could not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but he did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice. Mueller didn't charge Trump but wrote that he couldn't exonerate him, either. </s> WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Wednesday asserted executive privilege to shield documents about the administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, a move meant to try to undercut an expected vote by a House panel to hold his attorney general and commerce secretary in contempt for failing to turn over the materials to lawmakers.

Attorney General William Barr had a day earlier warned the House Oversight Committee that if it moved toward holding him in contempt, he would ask Trump to assert privilege to protect the materials. The committee, though, rejected his offer, and was preparing to vote Wednesday on a contempt finding when Trump followed through on Barr’s threat.

The department revealed the assertion in a letter to the committee, which called the contempt vote “unnecessary and premature.”

In the Justice Department’s view, the privilege assertion undercuts the contempt finding, because it prevents the attorney general from turning over materials lawmakers had subpoenaed.

But the Oversight Committee is expected to hold Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt anyway. Unless they later work out a deal with the Justice Department, the court system will ultimately decide which documents lawmakers are entitled to see.

The Justice Department and the Oversight Committee are essentially on the same trajectory as the Department and the House Judiciary Committee were last month, when the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt for failing to turn over materials related to now-former special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

In that case, though, the Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department later worked out a deal. That contempt process is in “abeyance,” though Democrats have taken steps to make sure they have the ability to sue the department in court.

The expected contempt vote Wednesday would mark a further escalation in the fight between House Democrats and the Republican administration over the investigatory powers of Congress that is playing out in multiple committees and the courts.

Democrats say the larger issue is that the White House is almost completely rejecting congressional oversight – stonewalling requests for documents and blocking witnesses from testifying on various subjects. The administration, meanwhile, argues that Democrats are requesting far more materials than they should legally have access to in an attempt to embarrass the president, and they have been unwilling to negotiate.

If the Oversight Committee contempt resolution is approved by the full House, Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., would be empowered to ask a federal court to order Barr and Ross to comply with subpoenas that sought documents related to the 2020 Census decision and testimony from a senior Justice Department official.

Democrats have already gone to federal judges in Washington and New York to seek enforcement of subpoenas targeting Trump’s financial records in the possession of private companies. They have scored initial wins in trial courts, but appeals are likely to play out over the coming months.

The Oversight Committee authorized Cummings in April to issue subpoenas to Barr and Ross for documents related to the Census decision and for a deposition of John Gore, principal deputy assistant attorney general.

But the Justice Department said it would not comply with the subpoena for Gore to testify. In a letter last week to Barr, Cummings cited the attorney general’s “unprecedented order” to Gore to defy the subpoena as part of the reason for the contempt votes.

Democratic lawmakers have accused the Trump administration of stonewalling their efforts to investigate Ross’s March 2018 decision to add the citizenship question, which the government says it needs to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.

In a statement last week, the Commerce Department noted that Ross has previously testified before the committee and that the department has turned over nearly 14,000 pages of documents to the panel.

Opponents of the citizenship question have argued that it will suppress responses to the survey among immigrant communities, resulting in an undercount in the areas where they live.

The population count from the Decennial Census is used to allocate $800 billion a year in federal funding and determine congressional representation and redistricting.

A key issue in the challenges to the citizenship question is how it came to be added. Ross originally told Congress that his decision to add it came solely in response to a December 2017 request from the Justice Department, but lawsuits later produced emails showing that Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, had been pushing for the question for months before that.

In March of this year, Democrats on the Oversight Committee grilled him about it extensively, with several asking whether he had lied under oath, and one demanding his resignation.

The committee also met with Gore that month on the matter, but Cummings said he refused to answer more than 150 questions, citing ongoing litigation.

Three federal judges have struck down the Census question, saying Ross’ actions in adding it were in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court heard the case April 23. Evidence in the case concluded with oral arguments that day, and it appeared that the conservative majority seemed inclined to agree with the government that the decision to add the question was within the authority of the commerce secretary.

Last month, new evidence emerged suggesting that the citizenship question was crafted specifically to give an electoral advantage to Republicans and whites.

The evidence was found in the files of the prominent Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller after his death in August. According to lawyers challenging the question, it reveals that Hofeller “played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.’ ”

The lawyers also argued that Trump administration officials purposely obscured Hofeller’s role in court proceedings. </s> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee was expected to vote on Wednesday to subpoena Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full, unredacted report and underlying evidence from his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

If the motion passes, it would be a marked escalation of congressional pressure on the Trump administration to hand over all that Mueller documented during his 22-month probe, including grand jury evidence.

Lawmakers were expected to vote along party lines to authorize the panel’s Democratic chairman, Jerrold Nadler, to subpoena Mueller’s material, as well as documents and testimony from five former Trump aides, including one-time political advisor Steve Bannon and former White House Counsel Donald McGahn.

The committee’s focus shifted to subpoenas when it became clear that Attorney General William Barr would ignore a Democratic demand for him to turn over the full report by April 2. Barr has pledged to share a redacted copy of the nearly 400-page report with Congress and the public by mid-April, if not sooner.

Democrats, who hold a seven-seat majority on the 41-member Judiciary Committee, fear that Barr could use redactions to suppress evidence of potential misconduct by Trump and his campaign that could be vital to their congressional oversight agenda.

Barr’s March 24 summary of the Mueller report said the special counsel did not establish that Trump campaign officials conspired with Russia during the presidential election but also did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice. Barr also said Mueller’s team had not found enough proof to warrant bringing obstruction charges against the president.

Trump has long denied any collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. Moscow says it did not try to interfere in the election, even though U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that it secretly trying to sway U.S. voters in Trump’s favor.

A subpoena would open a new legal front against the Trump administration by Democrats who won control of the House in last year’s congressional elections. But it is not clear if the Justice Department would simply hand over all the documents they now seek.

The Department could ignore the subpoena, running the risk of being held in contempt of Congress, and prepare for a lengthy battle in the courts.

Democrats have pledged to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce a subpoena and obtain the full report.

“We need that report turned over. Look at every prior case of independent counsel and special counsel, they’ve turned over the entire report within a day or two,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, a House Judiciary Democrat. “What’s taking place here is a sharp break from precedent.”

It was not clear when Nadler might start issuing subpoenas, if authorized to do so.

Trump took a dig on Tuesday at Nadler and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, one of the president’s strongest critics in Congress about the Russia investigation.

“There is no amount of testimony or document production that can satisfy Jerry Nadler or Shifty Adam Schiff. It is now time to focus exclusively on properly running our great Country!”

Republicans contend that Barr is being transparent under Justice Department regulations adopted after former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the 1990s, which allow the attorney general to be circumspect in what he releases. They also contend that Democrats are seeking grand jury material that federal law precludes the Justice Department from sharing.

“It’s unfortunate that a body meant to uphold the law has grown so desperate that it’s patently misrepresenting the law,”

Representative Doug Collins, the committee’s top Republican, said this week.

The committee was due to meet to consider the subpoena resolution after Nadler and five other Democratic House oversight committee chairs wrote to Barr, giving him one last chance to produce an unredacted Mueller report.

In addition to McGahn and Bannon, the committee was expected to authorize subpoenas for former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former White House deputy counsel Ann Donaldson.

The five former Trump aides were among 81 people, agencies and other entities that received document requests on March 4 as part of the committee’s obstruction and corruption investigation of Trump and his associates. </s> WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee formally issued a subpoena on Friday demanding that the Justice Department hand over to Congress an unredacted version of Robert S. Mueller III’s report and all of the evidence underlying it by May 1.

The subpoena, one of the few issued thus far by House Democrats, escalates a fight with Attorney General William P. Barr over what material Congress is entitled to see from the special counsel’s nearly two-year investigation. The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, asked for all evidence, including summaries of witness interviews and classified intelligence.

“My committee needs and is entitled to the full version of the report and the underlying evidence consistent with past practice,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “Even the redacted version of the report outlines serious instances of wrongdoing by President Trump and some of his closest associates. It now falls to Congress to determine the full scope of that alleged misconduct and to decide what steps we must take going forward.”

Mr. Nadler’s deadline falls a day before Mr. Barr is scheduled to testify publicly before the Judiciary Committee in what is expected to be an explosive session where Democrats plan to excoriate Mr. Barr’s handling of the report and Republicans will urge their colleagues to accept that there was no criminality and move on. </s> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate on Friday rejected Attorney General William Barr’s proposal to allow them access to a less-redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation report.

In an April 19 letter to the attorney general, six Democratic lawmakers led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer instead reiterated their demand for Barr to release the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence to Congress. But they also said they were open to discussing a “reasonable accommodation” with the Justice Department.

The letter was also signed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein and top Senate Intelligence Committee Democrat Mark Warner.

“Your proposed accommodation - which among other things would prohibit discussion of the full report, even with other committee members - is not acceptable,” the Democrats wrote.

The lawmakers said access to the full Mueller report and underlying evidence is necessary for Congress to fulfill its “constitutional responsibilities”.

“This includes considering whether legislation is needed in light of the findings contained in Special Counsel Mueller’s report and the attorney general’s determination that no prosecution is warranted despite those facts,” the letter said.

Also on Friday, Nadler issued a subpoena to obtain the full report.
The United States House Committee on the Judiciary votes to hold United States Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after he failed to comply with a subpoena ordering him to provide them with the full, unredacted version of the Mueller Report last week. The full House will vote on the measure in the near future.