The judge in the case of Trump New York porn star Hush Money refuses to recuse himself from the trial

A New York judge appointed to preside over a porn star trial Donald Trump on Monday refused to recuse himself from the case, saying he was sure he could be “fair and impartial” with the former president.

Judge Juan Merchan said he was “carefully weighing” the legal criteria to recuse himself after Trump cited the judge’s alleged conflicts of interest.

The judge wrote that he “is of the opinion that stepping down would not be in the public interest.”

In the five-page decision, Merchan directly quoted a federal appeals court ruling urging judges to balance a policy of strengthening public confidence in the court system against the chance that people who question a judge’s impartiality were merely trying to avoid “negative consequences.”

Trump had asked Merchan to recuse himself from the case in Manhattan Supreme Court, where his trial is scheduled to begin in late March, citing three different areas of potential conflict of interest.

The Republican presidential candidate there is accused of multiple counts of falsifying business records related to the payment of $130,000 in hush money by Trump’s then-attorney Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her silent about an alleged sexual attempt with Trump.

Although Trump denies having sex with Daniels, he and his company, The Trump Organization, reimbursed Cohen for the payment and gave him additional money in connection with her as well.

Trump’s lawyers argued that Merchan’s daughter presented him with a conflict of interest because she heads a digital marketing firm that works with Democratic candidates.

They also cited Merchant’s role in a separate criminal case involving Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of Trump’s corporation, and the judge’s $35 contributions to Democrats in 2020, $15 of which went to the campaign of President Joe Biden, who defeated Trump. year.

On the issue of his daughter’s employment, Merchan noted that in May, the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics issued an opinion saying that the case did not involve Merchan’s daughter or her work, directly or indirectly.

In the opinion of the committee, “they are not parties or potential witnesses in the case, and none of the parties or lawyers before the judge are clients at work.”

“We see nothing in the investigation to indicate that the outcome of the case could have any bearing on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests.”

Merchan noted that the Trump Organization had previously sought unsuccessfully to relieve him of presiding over its criminal case on the same grounds that Trump himself used in his case: the judge’s “alleged improper conduct in the plea negotiations,” Weisselberg said.

“Raising identical reasons now on behalf of a different defendant, based on an entirely different indictment, only serves to weaken the reasonableness of the prosecution,” Mershan wrote in his decision Monday.

On the question of his political contributions, Merchan noted that the State Advisory Commission wrote that “these modest political contributions made more than two years ago could not reasonably create an impression, prejudice, or favoritism in the case before the judge.”

“This court has examined its conscience and is sure of its ability to be just and impartial,” Merchan wrote. The order states, “The defendant’s request to recuse and provide an explanation is denied on all grounds.”

Merchan cited the New York Federal Court of Appeals decision in 1988 on the judicial refusal.

“The presiding judge is in the best position to weigh the implications of those alleged matters in the motion to recuse,” says the ruling in the case known as In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which is suing Trump, opposed the motion for dismissal on the grounds that “Defendant does not present arguments that fairly raise any actual or perceived conflict of interest or prior bias.”