But according to what I have read, arresting no-show, uncooperative witnesses by the House Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives is allowed under law. And it has been done before.
But whether that will ever happen in this standoff between Nadler and Barr, is open for speculation.
They can bring him, but they can’t force him to speak.
It will happen, they are will arrest him because it’s all about optics now.
Why can’t Barr get a Judge to tell them that Barr doesn’t have to appear to talk to House staff lawyers.
Barr is not a witness.
At least I don't think he is. witness to what?
Barr is not a witness. He is the head of a Federal Agency under the Executive Branch.
I had to google that. I found this and it seems to be fully researched.
Specifically, the House could “direct the sergeant-at-arms to arrest the witness, try her in the House, and upon conviction, place her in detention in a House facility until she either complied with the subpoena or the term of the Congress expired, whichever came first.”74 This option has the advantage of not relying on any other branch of government, but it is one that Congress “has not employed . . . in over seventy years.” 75Moreover, because detention cannot extend beyond a particular session of Congress,76 a particularly recalcitrant witness could simply choose to remain in detention until the end of a session and thereby avoid testifying.
https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Congressional-Oversight-Issue-Brief.pdf
They stopped doing that because a "civil suit in district court in the face of Executive Branch officials’ refusal to turn over documents or appear before a committee based on assertions of executive privilege" works better.
A common citizen is not a member of a co-equal branch of government like the AG is, also this is a political fight between two equal branches of government, this is not a legal fight. There are only three remedies available to Congress in these kinds of fights: one - the power of the purse, they can deny the executive branch the money it needs to perform its functions. 2 - The power to impeach and remove from office those executive branch officers denying Congress what it wants. 3 - Make it an issue in the next election and try to persuade the electorate to elect a different President next time. The Constitution bars these kinds of internecine fights between the branches of government from being considered criminal for obvious reasons; one of which is they did not want people denied their rights by being thrown in jail for political and policy disputes between politicians, those are never to be considered criminal in nature.