There was a moment of something like levity during Wednesday’s meeting of the House Judiciary Committee. The committee had met to decide whether to grant its Democratic chairman, Jerrold Nadler, of New York, the power to issue a subpoena for Robert Mueller’s report on Russian involvement in the 2016 election. A week and a half ago, Mueller delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr, who a few days later sent a short summary of its findings to Congress. It’s expected that Barr will release the whole report, in some form, soon. But what form, with what kinds of information redacted, and with what explanations? These are high-stakes questions for Democrats on Capitol Hill, who contend that the report may contain damaging information about the President. Republicans spent Wednesday’s Judiciary meeting arguing that Democrats were making a drama out of seeking the full report only to distract from their disappointment at its chief findings. The levity came when Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican, was questioning his Democratic colleagues’ motives.

“What did the Attorney General tell us that the principal findings of Mr. Mueller’s report were?” Jordan asked. “No new indictments, no sealed indictments, no collusion, no obstruction.” David Cicilline, the Democrat from Rhode Island, interrupted to ask Jordan if he would yield some time for a question. “I only have a little bit of time,” Jordan warned. Cicilline insisted that his question was short. Jordan nodded his assent.

“You made reference to the Mueller report,” Cicilline said. “Have you seen it? Because we haven’t.”

“No, I’ve seen the principal findings from the Attorney General,” Jordan replied. There were laughs in the room, and even Jordan couldn’t help but smile.

The joke was in how clearly this exchange illustrated the polarized state of the current debate. The committee then voted to approve Nadler’s subpoena power, on a party-line vote. The posturing will continue. Nadler said early in the meeting that, even if he was granted subpoena power, he’d give Barr more time to coöperate with the Committee’s requests before using it. If Nadler does eventually issue the subpoena, Barr will likely fight it, and the whole thing will end up as a matter for the courts to decide. Wednesday’s session was on the undercard, the fight before the fight before the fight.

And yet the proceeding served to show that, despite the White House’s exuberant claims of exoneration, Democrats still want to make a major political fight out of Mueller and his report. They’re going to question Barr’s role as Mueller’s interpreter and front man, and chase whatever leads they can find in Mueller’s report, once they get it. Earlier in the day, Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC that he thought it was “inevitable” that Mueller himself would be called to testify before “more than one committee” in Congress. Mueller’s investigation may be over, but Democrats aren’t done with him.