The ongoing legal tussle between Donald Trump and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office regarding the recusal of Judge Juan Merchan from the former president’s hush money case in New York faced another round of contention. In a recent court filing, prosecutors representing District Attorney Alvin Bragg rebuffed Trump’s defense team’s request to have Judge Merchan removed from the case on grounds of alleged conflicts of interest. Trump’s argument for recusal revolves around Merchan’s daughter, who is employed at a Democratic political consulting firm.
In their filing, prosecutors emphasized that Trump failed to present any new developments justifying a reconsideration of a previous review by a New York judicial ethics board in August 2023. During this review, the state advisory committee concluded that Merchan’s impartiality couldn’t reasonably be doubted based on his daughter’s political affiliations.
Trump has persistently pursued Merchan’s removal from the case, which was brought against him by Bragg’s office. The indictment accuses the former president of filing fraudulent financial records to conceal payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and others during the 2016 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 criminal counts listed in Bragg’s indictment.
In May 2023, the legal representatives of the former president urged Judge Merchan to recuse himself from the case, citing various concerns. These included a $15 donation that Merchan had made to President Joe Biden’s campaign in 2020 and alleged conflicts involving Merchan’s daughter, Loren, whom the defense argued had a potential financial stake tied to the case’s outcome.
However, Merchan dismissed all of Trump’s assertions in an order issued three months later, drawing partly upon guidance provided by the New York Judicial Ethics Committee.
Recent Developments
In a filing submitted on Monday, Trump once again sought Merchan’s removal from the hush money case. The renewed argument contended that Loren Merchan’s firm, Authentic, could stand to financially gain depending on the judge’s rulings in the case.
Responding to Trump’s latest request, Bragg’s office detailed three key reasons why it should be rejected in their filing on Tuesday. Among these reasons was the dismantling of Trump’s assertion that Authentic, Loren Merchan’s firm, had purportedly received significant financial backing from entities associated with Trump’s “political rivals.”
Manhattan prosecutors dissected Trump’s arguments, highlighting what they perceived as speculative connections. They pointed out the intricate web of assumptions: money flowing to Loren Merchan’s firm, purported ties to politicians, and the indirect link to the case. According to prosecutors, this chain of innuendos falls short of demonstrating that Judge Merchan holds a direct, substantial interest in the case.
In response, Trump’s legal team emphasized the alleged “commercial interests” benefiting Loren Merchan’s political firm due to case developments. Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, underscored concerns over potential influence stemming from the judge’s familial relationships, calling into question the court’s impartiality.
When approached for comment, Newsweek sought clarification from Trump’s campaign regarding these developments.
Moreover, Trump’s legal team filed a motion opposing Bragg’s office request to clarify a gag order imposed by Merchan after Trump criticized Loren Merchan on Truth Social. Trump’s camp defended the criticisms as valid commentary on the judge’s decision not to recuse himself from the case.
The expanded gag order, which now extends to the judge’s family members, drew strong opposition from Trump’s campaign. They condemned it as an assault on Trump’s First Amendment rights, labeling it unconstitutional and an attempt by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, allegedly at President Biden’s behest, to hinder Trump’s presidential candidacy.
Looking ahead, jury selection for Trump’s hush money case is slated to commence on April 15 in Manhattan. Legal analysts speculate that the trial could conclude as early as May, potentially yielding a verdict on at least one of Trump’s four criminal indictments before the November presidential ballot.
