NY judge denies Trump’s bid for recusal in ‘hush money’ case, says he’s ‘certain’ he can be impartial
The Manhattan judge overseeing Donald Trump’s “hush money” criminal case denied the former president’s request that he recuse himself — saying he “examined [his] conscience” and is sure he can rule fairly.
Trump, 77, in June asked Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to recuse himself from District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s criminal case on the grounds that the judge’s daughter’s company allegedly has a “political and financial interest” in the outcome.
But Merchan rejected Trump’s arguments, saying that removing himself from the case “would not be in the public interest,” in a decision issued on Friday.
The judge wrote that he “examined [his] conscience and is certain in [his] ability to be fair and impartial,” the filing reads.
Trump had argued that the fact that Merchan’s daughter is the chief operating officer of Authentic Campaigns — a digital marketing agency that works with Democratic Party candidates, including President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris — created either an actual or perceived conflict of interest in the judge overseeing the case.
The former president also said the fact that Merchan donated $35 to Democratic causes in 2020, and that he urged former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg to be a government witness were further grounds for recusal.
But Merchan said Trump had “failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required on these grounds.”
“The speculative and hypothetical scenarios offered by Defendant fall well short of the legal standard,” he wrote.
The judge also sought an opinion from New York state’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which on May 4 said, “We see nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business or any of their interests.”
As for the donations, the Advisory Committee said “these modest political contributions made more than two years ago cannot reasonably create an impression of bias.”
As for the Weisselberg argument, Merchan said the Trump Organization made a very similar motion in a criminal case against the real estate company that he had rejected at the time.
The motion in Trump’s case “is denied for the same reason it was denied the first time,” Merchan wrote.
Bragg brought a 34-count indictment against the former commander-in-chief in April for allegedly having former porn star Stormy Daniels paid to keep quiet about her claims she had an affair with Trump while he was married to current wife Melania Trump.
Trial in the case is set for March 24, 2024.
Trump lawyer Susan Necheles declined to comment Monday about Merchan’s decision.
The Manhattan DA’s Office declined to comment.
Trump also faces two federal indictments, one related to his alleged efforts to interfere in the 2020 election, and the other accusing him of hoarding troves of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office and then lying about it.
The embattled former president has denied any wrongdoing.
