(CNN) House Democrats are quietly discussing moving ahead with punishments for individuals who defied subpoenas in President Donald Trump's impeachment inquiry -- even as some are growing skeptical about issuing a subpoena for the testimony of former national security adviser John Bolton .

Lawmakers involved in the discussions told CNN that they believe that the individuals who ignored their lawful subpoenas should be held in contempt, arguing that they should be held accountable for refusing to comply with compulsory orders as Democrats probed whether Trump leveraged his office in pushing Ukraine to announce investigations potentially beneficial to his electoral prospects.

At the same time, some Democrats who had been pushing hard for Bolton to testify in the impeachment inquiry are showing little appetite now to pursue his testimony amid the possibility that it could lead to a court fight and also distract from the party's election-year messaging.

The discussions underscore how Democrats are trying to navigate the post-impeachment terrain: With some eager to tie up loose ends from their sweeping investigations and others more keen on focusing on domestic issues central to their 2020 agenda.

No decisions have been made on either front, lawmakers said. But the topics have been discussed among members of the House Intelligence Committee, as Democrats weigh their next steps after Trump became the third President in history to be impeached by the House and then acquitted by the Senate.

"There's a pretty vibrant debate over the wisdom of calling Bolton," said Rep. Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat who sits on the committee, adding there's a "question about whether he's going to impart any new information." He said it's an open question whether interviewing him before obtaining any of his notes and records would be fruitful, while also contending that pursuing Bolton could "compromise the intensity" of the Democrats' election-year message.

"I'm in the camp that says, 'I'm not sure we're going to learn a lot more from John Bolton.' I think eventually it's important to know what he knows. But I don't feel any urgency," Himes said.

What has complicated matters more is the ruling on Friday by a federal appeals court dismissing the House Judiciary Committee's attempt to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to comply with its subpoena for his testimony. Democrats plan to appeal the ruling, but the decision could bolster efforts by Bolton to fight any House subpoena.

Several Democrats, at the moment, say it makes more sense to wait until Bolton publishes a book he is writing detailing his time in the White House and his interactions with Trump over the Ukraine saga -- or to see if the White House succeeds in preventing its publication.

"I think it would be a wise decision to wait to see the book if it's out in a reasonable amount of time to serve as a guide for us," said Florida Rep. Val Demings, a Democratic member of the committee who served as a House impeachment manager.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have not indicated their preference on moving ahead with either a subpoena or holding individuals in contempt. There were 14 people who ignored Democratic subpoenas during the impeachment inquiry, including White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, White House budget official Michael Duffey and White House national security counsel attorney John Eisenberg.

"No decisions have been made, but members have begun discussing whether to subpoena Bolton, and under what circumstances — including if the White House succeeds in blocking publication of Bolton's book," a committee official told CNN. "Additionally, no decisions have been made on contempt, but it's been a matter of discussion."

Himes, Demings and other Democrats all indicated support for taking action against people who ignored their subpoenas.

"It's actually a discussion point that's underway right now," Washington Rep. Denny Heck, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said when asked about holding individuals in contempt. "I think people do need to be held accountable in some form for defying this otherwise what you've done is significantly degraded the institutions -- and these institutions sustain us."

Himes added that those who ignored a lawful subpoena should be reprimanded, especially since those who complied with the subpoenas and cooperated with House Democrats are the ones who ended up facing backlash from Trump and others.

"There has to be consequences for those who chose to ignored lawful, congressional subpoenas," Himes said. "I think it's really important for this institution to stand up for itself. So, I do think there should be adverse consequences for those who ignored congressional subpoenas."

Demings added: "I do believe that everybody should be held accountable."

The Bolton calculation is more complicated.

Since the end of the impeachment trial, Bolton has declined to speculate about what he would do if the House Intelligence Committee served him with a subpoena now. But his attorney last fall indicated that he would take a House subpoena to court, a threat that led Schiff to decide against issuing one for Bolton over concerns that it would lead to a protracted court fight.

Neither Bolton nor his attorney responded to a request for comment.

In January, Bolton changed his tune and issued a statement saying he'd be willing to testify at Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate if he were served with a subpoena. That led to a contentious fight between the two parties, with GOP senators ultimately prevailing and blocked moving forward with a subpoena . Republicans argued there was little new information that Bolton could provide for the case Democrats had made.

Some Democrats worry issuing a subpoena now would amount to very little.

"The fact of the matter is, he could be subpoenaed and ignore it and then where are we?" Heck asked. "He already told us that he was going to ignore a subpoena and a pending court case ... can go on forever."