Boris Johnson has accomplished every part he probably may to discredit the Privileges Committee's report on claims that he lied to MPs over partygate. But up to now he has met fierce resistance.

After declaring warfare with allegations of a "witch-hunt" and kangaroo courtroom", his latest attack was directed at committee member Sir Bernard Jenkin, after a report that he attended a celebration that broke lockdown guidelines.

In a letter to Harriet Harman, who chairs the committee, Mr Johnson stated if Sir Bernard broke the principles he was not a "valid judge" and was responsible of "flagrant and monstrous hypocrisy".

Politics latest: Dorries to 'prolong pain' for PM by resigning later

Strong stuff. And after earlier accusing Sir Bernard of "a total contempt of parliament" and demanding his resignation from the committee, Mr Johnson wrote: "He should have recused himself."

And he added, in typical Johnson hyperbole: "I really find it incredible - and nauseating - that this matter is emerging at this stage of the process."

Nauseating? No doubt the bereaved relations of COVID victims - already infuriated by the row over concealing WhatsApp messages from the official inquiry - will probably be nauseated by Mr Johnson's protests.

Mr Johnson and Sir Bernard was Brexit allies. And when Sir Bernard was appointed to chair the highly effective Liaison Committee of MPs, which recurrently grills the PM, he was seen as a Johnson crony.

But Sir Bernard has since proved he is no patsy on the Liaison Committee. And it's reported that he voted with nearly all of the seven MPs on the Privileges Committee who concluded that Mr Johnson is responsible.

Opposition MPs have been fast to denounce Mr Johnson's Eleventh-hour assault on Sir Bernard as an act of desperation.

The Lib Dems' deputy chief Daisy Cooper stated: "This is a typical distraction tactic from Boris Johnson that doesn't change the fact that he broke the law and lied about it."

It appears that members of the Privileges Committee agreed, with one supply calling it "desperate stuff" and stating - rightly - that the committee is ruling on Mr Johnson's claims within the Commons fairly than the gatherings themselves.

Please use Chrome browser for a extra accessible video participant

1:15

The occasion that riled Mr Johnson - or, extra seemingly, supplied a chance for him to assault Sir Bernard - was a drinks reception hosted by Deputy Speaker Dame Eleanor Laing for Sir Bernard's spouse on her sixty fifth birthday on 8 December 2020.

'Blistering assaults'

The Independent quoted Dame Eleanor saying she held a "business meeting" that night and claiming: "I was so strict with my two-metre ruler and told everyone we will adhere to those rules and be very careful."

Sir Bernard instructed the Guido Fawkes web site, which reported the occasion that triggered this blue-on-blue row: "I did not attend any drinks parties during lockdown." But requested if he had something to drink, he stated: "I don't recall."

Mr Johnson launched his marketing campaign of blistering assaults on the committee in his resignation statement last Friday when he accused it of "egregious bias" and claimed its MPs have been decided to "drive me out of Parliament".

Since then, Mr Johnson has been haranguing the Privileges Committee all this week.

At 11.57pm on Monday night time - sure, actually - he despatched a letter containing "further representations", a transfer which seems to have delayed publication of the report by no less than 24 hours.

Then, regardless of in all probability inflicting the delay himself, on Tuesday night he declared: "The Privileges Committee should publish their report and let the world judge their nonsense. They have no excuse for delay.

"Their absurdly unfair guidelines don't even permit any criticism of their findings. I've made my views clear to the committee in writing - and can achieve this extra broadly after they lastly publish."

Of course he'll. Stand by for fireworks.

And so will his cheerleader-in-chief Nadine Dorries, who conveniently has not yet carried out her threat to quit as an MP, elevating the likelihood that she is going to brutally condemn the report when MPs debate it on Monday.

How many extra MPs will be a part of her in trashing the report? Jacob Rees-Mogg, little doubt, and the opposite Johnson ultras. But they danger turning into a dwindling minority on the Tory benches within the Commons.

Irrespective of the previous PM's Eleventh hour assault on the committee, the following few days - from publication of the report back to Monday's Commons debate - will reveal whether or not a Johnson comeback is a sensible risk or he is a busted flush.