It was 39 days ago when the right-wing Georgian filed her own motion to oust Speaker Mike Johnson, though unlike Gaetz’s effort, the congresswoman did not trigger any votes. Instead, as regular readers know, Greene effectively initiated an uncertain process and got to work looking for allies.

And while it’s true that she’s found a couple — literally, two — there’s a growing impression in Republican circles that Greene’s gambit is proving to be a rather embarrassing failure for an extremist already burdened by a cringeworthy reputation. The headline on an Axios report this morning reads, “GOP lawmakers say Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to vacate has fizzled.”

A sizable number of GOP lawmakers cast doubt on the odds of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) pulling the trigger on her motion to vacate Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), with some arguing her efforts lost momentum after members went home for recess.

The report quoted one House Republican who said, in reference to the effort to oust the incumbent House speaker, “Even trolls online have said they don’t want it.” Another added, referring to Greene, “I don’t think she’s going to do it — I think that window for her has passed.”.....

Looking ahead, Greene has a handful of options, none of which are especially appealing:

Greene could push back against the conventional wisdom in her party, force a vote on the speaker’s fate, and see what happens. (She would almost certainly lose the fight.)

Greene could keep the threats going in the coming months, never pull the proverbial trigger on her procedural scheme, and reinforce the impression that she’s not nearly as strong as she likes to pretend.

Greene could concede defeat, admit that she doesn’t have the votes, and look weak.

Greene could somehow find more intraparty allies, convince Democrats not to bail out Johnson, and somehow succeed in her crusade.

It’s that fourth option that seems the least likely.

The justice then added, however, that Ford’s decision is now “looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history, I think, by most people.” Kavanaugh, kicking around the idea that presidents might need to be shielded, imagined whether Ford might’ve been concerned about facing an obstruction investigation for having interfered with prosecutors’ case against Nixon.

In context, the justice’s point seemed to be that Ford did something courageous, and the Republican has been vindicated by history, but the then-president might not have taken this commendable step if he were concerned about possibly being held criminally liable — all of which, Kavanaugh suggested, speaks to the need for some kind of presidential immunity.

But there are a handful of important problems with this.

First, Ford made no claims to presidential immunity and faced no prosecutorial scrutiny in the wake of his Nixon pardon.

Second, Kavanaugh’s claim that “most people” see Ford’s pardon as “one of the better decisions in presidential history” is unsupported by evidence. A Washington Post analysis last week noted that scholars and Americans in general do not necessarily hold Ford’s decision in such a high regard.

And third, I’m curious about whether Kavanaugh has ever actually read Ford’s pardon.....

https://twitter.com/allinwithchris/status/1763014265156346205

From Ford’s pardon:

“As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.”

So let’s take stock. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case in which a corrupt and indicted former president, fearing legal consequences, is claiming absolute immunity. At least some of the justices treated the underlying question as legitimate and unresolved.

One of the great things about Laurie Roberts’ columns in The Arizona Republic is that she has a knack for summarizing multifaceted political stories in a straightforward ways. Consider the lede, for example, in Roberts’ latest piece.

The Arizona Republican Party on Saturday sent a flat out, full-throated, flabbergasting message to the voters of this great state. We be crazy, they proclaimed. Party officials, during their state convention, elected none other than indicted Sen. Jake Hoffman and expelled Rep. Liz Harris to represent Arizona on the Republican National Committee.

....In January 2022, about a year after Hoffman served as a fake elector in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, an Arizona Republic reporter caught up with the GOP state senator and asked him how we came to participate in the allegedly illegal partisan scheme. The brief interview did not go well for the lawmaker.
https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1493784128361172995
This, of course, was the same Hoffman who, on Jan. 5, 2021, sent a letter urging then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay the counting of Arizona’s electors and to “seek clarification from the Arizona legislature as to which slate of electors were proper and accurate.” (Earlier, Hoffman was also allegedly involved in a scheme to pay teenagers to create bogus social-media accounts pushing messages intended to undermine public confidence in the elections.)

Two days after Hoffman was charged, the Arizona GOP thought it’d be a good idea to elevate Hoffman to the Republican National Committee.

“These are not just your run-of-the-mill election deniers,” Barrett Marson, a Republican strategist in Arizona, told NBC News in reference to Hoffman and Harris. “They are leaders in the whole experiment of election denialism.”

Or as Roberts’ column concluded, “So this then, is really who the Arizona Republican Party is now: An all-out conspiracy kook and a troll farmer-turned-indicted fake elector.”

The New York Times reported over the weekend:

Donald J. Trump spent the bulk of the past week in a Manhattan courtroom, standing trial as the first American president to face criminal prosecution. He is accused of falsifying business records to cover up an affair with a porn actress ahead of the 2016 election. Even though he did not take the stand as opening statements got underway, he took to the cameras to argue his case each day the court was in session.

The Times highlighted several of the key claims the Republican has pushed over the last week or so, including:

“Nobody’s been able to say what you’re supposed to call” Michael Cohen’s hush-money invoices.
Cohen “got in trouble. He went to jail. This had nothing to do with me.”

The Federal Election Commission “took a total pass on it. [FEC commissioners] said essentially nothing was done wrong or they would have done something about it.”

“I’m not allowed to defend myself, and yet other people are allowed to say whatever they want about me.”

“This is all a Biden indictment.”

None of these claims is true. In fact, they're demonstrably ridiculous. Most don’t even make sense to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the basics of the allegations......

What strikes me as notable, however, is how the former president’s allies might respond to fact-checking like this. They are, after all, going out on weak limbs, telling the public that this case is meritless and that Trump has nothing to worry about.

If that were true, why is it, exactly, that the suspected felon is lying uncontrollably about the basic details? If this doesn't make his sycophantic allies a little nervous, they're not paying close enough attention

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is in New York with Donald Trump at the former president's criminal trial, saying he will sit through the proceedings he called "sham."

“This trial is a travesty of justice,” Paxton wrote on social media. “I stand with Trump.”

Paxton did not make clear whether he is in New York for official state business or simply to attend the trial with Trump, with whom he has a close political relationship. The Manhattan trial, now in its second week, is expected to last six weeks.

Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn star amid his 2016 election campaign. He has pleaded not guilty. Trump is also fighting three other criminal indictments, but this will likely be the only one heard before the November presidential election in which he’s expected to face a rematch with Democrat Joe Biden.

Paxton could be seen entering the courthouse with Trump and his entourage on a live feed just before 8:30 a.m. Tuesday. Dressed in a blue suit and red tie, Paxton stood behind the former president as he spoke with reporters briefly before the trial resumed. Paxton did not make any public comments.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is in New York with Donald Trump at the former president's criminal trial, saying he will sit through the proceedings he called "sham."

“This trial is a travesty of justice,” Paxton wrote on social media. “I stand with Trump.”

Paxton did not make clear whether he is in New York for official state business or simply to attend the trial with Trump, with whom he has a close political relationship. The Manhattan trial, now in its second week, is expected to last six weeks.

Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn star amid his 2016 election campaign. He has pleaded not guilty. Trump is also fighting three other criminal indictments, but this will likely be the only one heard before the November presidential election in which he’s expected to face a rematch with Democrat Joe Biden.

Paxton could be seen entering the courthouse with Trump and his entourage on a live feed just before 8:30 a.m. Tuesday. Dressed in a blue suit and red tie, Paxton stood behind the former president as he spoke with reporters briefly before the trial resumed. Paxton did not make any public comments.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) flipped out after House Democrats announced they would back Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) against her ousting threat.

Democratic leadership announced Tuesday morning they would vote to table Greene's motion to vacate if she invoked the measure, calling her challenge to Johnson's position an example of "Pro-Putin Republican obstruction" The Georgia Republican issued a statement on social media attacking the speaker and his new-found allies.

"Everyday, I fight the Democrat agenda destroying America and I fight for an America First Republican agenda," Greene posted on X. "Mike Johnson is officially the Democrat Speaker of the House. Here is their official endorsement of his Speakership."

"What slimy back room deal did Johnson make for the Democrats’ support?" she added. "He should resign, switch parties, and continue voting for Biden’s open border invasion of America, endless wars, full term abortion on demand, trans agenda on children, warrantless spying on the American people, weaponizing government against President Trump and his supporters, and every other Democrat wishlist item he’s handed over."

Democrats have praised Johnson's leadership after he brought a $95 billion foreign aid package to a vote. It included military assistance for Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. allies that Greene had vociferously opposed, and she threatened to invoke the motion to vacate she filed last month in response to the legislation.