Trump’s hush money judge rejects his third attempt to kick him off the case
Trump accused Judge Juan Merchan of conflict of interest over his daughter’s political consulting work
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial won’t be stepping away after the former president failed to kick him off the case for a third time.
Trump has repeatedly tried and failed to force New York Justice Juan Merchan to recuse himself.
In a late filing on Tuesday, Judge Merchan shot down a third recusal motion from Trump, who has alleged that there is a conflict of interest because Merchan’s daughter works as a Democratic political consultant.
Trump’s attorneys accused Merchan’s daughter of having a “long-standing relationship” with Kamala Harris, and claimed that she “has obtained — and stands to obtain in the future — extensive financial, professional, and personal benefits from her relationship with Harris.”
Last year, New York’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics determined that Merchan’s impartiality “cannot reasonably be questioned” based on his daughter’s line of work.
“This Court now reiterates for the third time that which should already be clear,” Merchan wrote. “Innuendo and mischaracterizations do not a conflict create. Recusal is therefore not necessary, much less required.”
Trump has “provided nothing new for this Court to consider,” according to Merchan.
His attorneys have “merely repeated arguments that have already been denied by this and higher courts,” the judge added. “Defense Counsel’s reliance, and apparent citation to his own prior affirmation, rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, is unavailing.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg blasted Trump’s latest recusal motion in court filings as a “vexatious and frivolous attempt to relitigate” an issue that the court had already decided twice before.
“No amount of overheated, hyperbolic rhetoric can cure the fatal defects in [Trump’s] ongoing effort to impugn the fairness of these proceedings and the impartiality of this Court,” the filing from Bragg’s office read.
On May 30, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records as part of a scheme to corruptly influence the 2016 election by covering up reimbursement payments to Michael Cohen. The attorney had bought the silence of adult film star Stormy Daniels to prevent her from going public with her story about having sex with Trump.
After the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions in office earlier this year, Trump’s attorneys argued that the New York verdict should be tossed, claiming that evidence presented should have been shielded from jurors.
Judge Merchan is expected to issue a decision on that motion by September 16. Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on September 18.