Rachel pointed out the meaning to Chairman Nadler's methodologically extending deadlines.

[StarfishSaver]

41. You're right

I posed this scenario in a thread a few days ago:

If the committee tried to get a contempt ruling against Barr without a showing that it tried to obtain his testimony through its standard invitations, the short-and-sweet hearing would go something like this:

"Your Honor. We are here to request the Court find the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for failure to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to a lawfully-issued subpoena"

"What steps did you take to secure Mr. Barr's appearance prior to issuing the subpoena?"

"Your Honor, the Committee invited the Attorney General to testify, pursuant to its rules. He accepted. However, when he learned that a Committee Counsel would ask the questions, he withdrew his acceptance. We thereupon approved the issuance of a subpoena by a majority vote of the Committee."

Did you make any other attempt to compel his appearance after issuing the subpoena?"

"No."

"You didn't try to work it out with the Justice Department?"

"No."

"Did you respond to him after he said he wouldn't appear under those terms?"

"No."

"Not even a letter?"

"No. We didn't see the point. We know they're not going to cooperate."

"You know that's not how it works, Counsel. You have to try to find a solution before you come to me to enforce a subpoena. If, after good faith effort, the Attorney General still refuses, we will revisit it. But I'm not going to issue a contempt ruling until you exhaust all of your remedies. We're adjourned." Bang Bang (that's the gavel)

Nadler knows exactly what he’s doing.