It's just three weeks since House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler subpoenaed the report without redactions, and all its underlying evidence, from special counsel Robert Mueller relating to his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Despite this, Nadler, D-N.Y., and fellow panel Democrats voted 24-16 Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to comply in the blink of an eye with their demand. Never mind that it would have been illegal for Barr to do so. It will be for the full House to decide whether to support the contempt vote, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she'll follow the committee's lead.

Democrats took turns grandstanding at the hearing, and simply ignored the fact that it would be against the law for Barr to disseminate some redacted material in Mueller's report. Nor did they acknowledge the mammoth amount of work that would be required to organize and hand over Mueller's mountains of evidence.

It's, of course, not surprising that no Democrat objected to Nadler's precipitous actions for, in 2019, congressional oversight consisting of forming up on one side of the committee room and barking at the other side.

Congress invokes official contempt charges rarely, indeed only three times in the past 35 years. It is meant to be a last resort. But in 2012, the last time it was used, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt for refusing to provide Congress with subpoenaed material, and Holder was a Democrat. So this is payback. But it should be noted that Holder had by then defied Congress for 203 days before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., first formally threatened him with contempt charges. Even then, Issa gave Holder an additional 48 days before his committee actually held a vote. And Issa was demanding answers about a Justice Department scandal that had actually resulted in the murder of at least one government official.

In shockingly sharp contrast, Nadler went from subpoena to contempt vote in 19 days, without evincing any desire to negotiate with the Justice Department over what could properly be shared by the committee. Nadler isn’t approaching this as one in which he should work out an agreement between two co-equal branches of government, which would be perfectly possible in this case if both sides were willing to be reasonable. Instead, he’s running a show trial to gin up enthusiasm among angry Democratic donors, both small and large.

What's more, and worse, is that Nadler's show trial is in pursuit of an end that is manifestly wrong. Barr’s efforts to protect privileged grand jury materials are not only justifiable but specifically mandated by law. Nadler has not a leg to stand on. Every single House Democrat on that committee knows and understands this. Yet not one objected to the circus in which they played the role of sundry clowns.

Contrast this again with Republican treatment of Holder. Unlike Barr, who is legally required to protect grand jury material, Holder was merely asserting an amorphous and constitutionally dubious privilege over internal Justice Department deliberations.

Nadler should explain why he is in such a rush. His timetable has nothing to do with justice or good government, and everything to do with the 2020 election calendar. Mueller couldn't find any evidence of collusion by Trump's campaign or any other American with Russia and its malefactors. So the clock is ticking for Democrats to use the fruits of Mueller's investigation, which he so helpfully gave them, in defiance of precedent, to raise money and talking points for use in the Democrats' pursuit of power.

Congress has a duty to sift through Mueller's evidence. It has a duty to exercise oversight and provide checks on executive power, in the interest of justice and the good of the country. Nadler's show trial has nothing to do with any of that.