New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan denied for the third time a request by Donald Trump to recuse himself from overseeing the criminal hush money case against the former president.
On May 30, Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying New York state business records for the purpose of concealing a hush money payment to the porn actor Stormy Daniels, who says she once had an affair with Trump. The payment, made by Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, came in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election.
Merchan is currently expected to sentence the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nominee on Sept. 18.
In a three-page filing, the judge responded to Trump’s latest recusal motion, made July 31. While Trump’s attorneys argued that changed circumstances warranted the new motion, Merchan rejected that reasoning.
“Stated plainly, Defendant’s arguments are nothing more than a repetition of stale and unsubstantiated claims,” Merchan wrote in the Tuesday order.
“Defendant has provided nothing new for this Court to consider. Counsel has merely repeated arguments that have already been denied by this and higher courts.”
Trump’s attorneys had argued beginning in May 2023 that Merchan was not qualified to oversee the trial due to his daughter’s work on behalf of Democratic political candidates, including Vice President Kamala Harris.
When Merchan asked the court’s advisory board on judicial ethics to weigh in last year, the board saw no reason for the judge to recuse himself from the case.
In his most recent motion, Trump argued that Merchan’s daughter’s work was more relevant now that Harris had become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Trump also argued that the gag order placed on him — and repeatedly upheld by New York appellate courts — was unconstitutional. Merchan called that argument “nothing more than an attempt to air grievances against this Court’s rulings.”
Sentencing in Trump’s case was delayed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in July that declared a president immune from prosecution for “official acts” made in office. Merchan is expected to weigh in on how that ruling applies to the facts of Trump’s case in the coming weeks.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
