R.G.: The argument for putting it on the table is that it’s a low-yield nuclear weapon. Escalatory fines, so that they could impose a financial penalty, specifically on individuals, I think are more politically palatable than any attempt to exercise a deprivation of liberty — an arrest.

The second piece is that, in my understanding, during Watergate there was a threat to use inherent contempt powers. So in favor of it would be to look for precedents of threatening the use of it, because there would be a sense that it’s not as unprecedented for Congress to invoke this kind of authority. And there’s the argument that unprecedented times require unprecedented countermeasures: The defiance of the Congress is so systematic by the administration that maybe it calls for norm disruption on the part of the House as well.

That’s in its favor, but against is still that it’s so unusual that it might distract from the larger question here, the impeachable conduct of the president and the alleged cover-up. And going down the road of contempt powers could easily land the House in prolonged litigation.

[Weeks before the Watergate hearings began, Senator Sam Ervin said, “I’d recommend to the Senate they send the sergeant-at-arms of the Senate to arrest a White House aide or any other witness who refuses to appear.”]

[At NBC News, Glenn Kirschner: “Why Democrats in Congress Should Use Inherent Contempt to Force Trump Officials to Testify]

Option 3: Continue with business as usual

As Noah Feldman writes in The Times, “The third article of impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Nixon charged him with contempt of Congress for ignoring subpoenas issued by Congress.” Some argue that the Democrats might bolster their case by allowing the White House to continue to obstruct their inquiry while waiting for the courts to rule on their subpoenas.

What are the risks of this strategy?

R.G.: The biggest risk is for the House to be predicating any of its strategy on expeditious vindication in the courts. Members should have very high confidence that they would be ultimately vindicated in the courts, but it will have no practical value given how long that will likely take.