Hello, it's the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕

If Trump's sentencing hearing happens on its new date of November 26, we'll know a few things.

One, we'll know how Merchan ruled on Trump's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court, Trump's attorneys have argued, held in the Trump immunity decision that official presidential acts can't be used as evidence in cases involving private wrongdoing. Two Trump officials – Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – testified about actions that took place in the White House. Merchan said he would rule on the motion to dismiss on Nov. 12. If he declines to dismiss, that clears the way for Trump's sentencing.

Two, we'll have the relief of knowing who won the Presidential election. Trump as a defeated candidate being sentenced would obviously look very different from a President-elect being sentenced in state court.

All that leaves Merchan's path forward unanswered. Assuming he declines to dismiss the case, he'll have around three weeks between the election and sentencing.  I've seen some commentators suggesting already that means a sentence of incarceration is more likely: Merchan, the thinking goes, would not want to sentence Trump to jail time before the election, Others say that it means Merchan will be more likely to dismiss the case as per the Supreme Court ruling: after all, he cited his need to comply with the ruling extensively in his letter delaying the sentencing.

As Merchan himself wrote, the case is "unique" in American history. It's impossible to predict what he is going to do.

Here's what else TPM has on tap this weekend:

• Kate Riga shares some chilling insights from her coverage of the status conference hearing in Jack Smith's Jan. 6 insurrection case this week.
• Khaya Himmelman checks in on Trump toady Stephen Miller, who is bringing Trump's manufactured non-citizen voting hysteria to Arizona because the state's Democratic officials won't do it for him.
• Emine Yücel tracks the backlash that's hit Tucker Carlson this week, after he hosted a Holocaust denier on his show.
• Emine Yücel breaks down Matt Gaetz and Kevin McCarthy's ongoing, childish feud.

Let's dig in. 

"It's been almost a year; you look rested," quipped Judge Tanya Chutkan. 

"Life was almost meaningless without you," grinned Trump attorney John Lauro in response. 

And thus restarted Special Counsel Jack Smith's long-stalled case against Donald Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, once considered the most serious case against the ex-President, now successfully delayed by the Supreme Court until well after the election. And if Trump wins, he'll put an end to it promptly.

Trump's lawyers returned to the D.C. courthouse Thursday with a clear message: The Supreme Court is on our side, and you should all act like it. Lauro complained about the procedural finagling, bemoaning a "rush to judgment" in his attempt to string out the case as long as possible.

"This case has been pending for over a year; we're hardly sprinting to a finish here," Chutkan responded. "Whatever my ruling on immunity is, it's going to be appealed and the taking of that appeal will stay the case. No one here is under any illusion that we are sprinting towards any trial date."

Chutkan will now have to wrestle with the Supreme Court's vague dictates about which charges get immunity, and which don't (or, she could go Lauro's much simpler route and just dismiss the case right off the bat, something she seems disinclined to do, based on her scheduling order).

At times, as I watched the proceeding from the cold and overlit media room, I felt like I was watching some academic exercise. All these fancy lawyers, this esteemed judge, were going through the motions in a case everyone knows could have a two-month shelf life. That that reality is banal, conventional knowledge — and also undemocratic, dictatorial, lawless — made it all the more chilling. 

On Wednesday, former Trump adviser Stephen Miller's legal group, American First Legal, filed a lawsuit against all 15 Arizona County recorders over their supposed failure to prevent non-citizens from voting in the state. This lawsuit comes against the backdrop of a larger effort by red state Republicans who, in the last several months, have breathed new life into the myth of widespread non-citizens voting, by advertising the removal of supposed thousands of non-citizens from the voter rolls.  

"This lawsuit seeks to restore public trust in our State's electoral system by holding the Defendants accountable for their failures and to ensure that the list maintenance required by the law—and common sense—is performed," the lawsuit reads. 

It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections – and it is something that rarely happens. According to Arizona law, if voters register to vote with federal registration forms, they do not need to provide documentary proof of citizenship. Election officials, however, are required to reject state voter registration forms if voters using them do not provide documentary proof of citizenship. The lawsuit argues that because voters don't need proof of citizenship when using federal forms to register, non-citizens are able to register to vote in Arizona. 

"America First Legal will do everything in its power to fight mass illegal alien voting and foreign interference in our democracy," Miller said in a statement. 

Last month, in a partial win for Arizona Republican lawmakers, the Supreme Court upheld part of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote using a state-created form. The court rejected the GOP effort to require proof of citizenship for federal forms too.  

In July, America First Legal sent letters to the 15 Arizona counties, threatening them with legal action if they did not take action to remove supposed non-citizens from the voter rolls, without providing evidence that non-citizens are on the rolls. 

Trump and his allies have been elevating the myth of non-citizen voting for months, creating distrust in the election system and setting up a scenario where Trump and his allies have something to blame if they lose in the fall. 

"It is feeding the disinformation that this is a problem, which obviously has become a talking point of the Trump campaign and frankly other political campaigns," Alice Clapman, senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Voting Rights Program, previously told TPM. 

Former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson has been under scrutiny this week over an interview he did with holocaust denier Darryl Cooper. During the interview in question, Cooper suggested that Nazi Germany's mass murder of Jewish people was an accident and that the millions who were systematically murdered just "ended up dead" at concentration camps because of poor planning.

As you can imagine, the interview was sharply condemned by many, including conservatives who have a history of brushing off and embracing right-wing personalities and politicians who have used antisemitic tropes, or associate with those who have. Remember when Trump dined with white supremacist Nick Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago?

"Giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda is a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans, to the memory of the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler, to the service of the millions of Americans who fought to defeat Nazism, and to every subsequent victim of antisemitism," White House senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said in a Thursday statement.

"Didn't expect Tucker Carlson to become an outlet for Nazi apologetics, but here we are," right-wing pundit Erick Erickson wrote on X.

But it seems the Trump-Vance campaign did not get the memo.

Turns out, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) pre-recorded an interview with Carlson on Thursday hours after the White House criticized the host for featuring Cooper on his show. And the cherry on top: Vance is scheduled to appear as a guest of Carlson's during a live speaking tour later this month.

"Not ideal timing. But it is what it is," a Trump campaign official said.

That's Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) reveling in his endless bad blood with former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

The feud between Gaetz and McCarthy has deep roots. If you've forgotten about arguably one of the most chaotic times up on the Hill in recent memory, a refresher: Gaetz was, of course, the one who filed the motion to vacate that led to McCarthy's ousting as speaker.

The MAGA congressman had a laundry list of reasons as to why he led the pack that ousted the former speaker but a big one involved him being angry with McCarthy for not putting a stop to the House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations that he had sex with a minor in 2017. And Gaetz reportedly blamed McCarthy for the revival of the investigation.

Gaetz has denied that allegation but earlier this year McCarthy spilled the tea, saying the motion to vacate "was surely based on Matt Gaetz trying to stop an ethics complaint."

Shortly after his ouster, McCarthy left Congress. But since then the former speaker and his allies have made a concerted effort to recruit Republican challengers to run against those who voted to dethrone him. Gaetz was undoubtedly in that mix. McCarthy endorsed his challenger Aaron Dimmock ahead of Florida's Republican primary this summer and a super PAC with deep ties to the McCarthy world put some serious financial muscle into trying to sink Gaetz's reelection bid.

That attempt by McCarthy was unsuccessful, but the school yard feud appears to be alive and well.