Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan rejects former President Donald Trump's 3rd attempt to oust him from hush money case

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan rejected Donald Trump’s third attempt to oust the judge from the former president's hush money trial ahead of the Sept. 18 sentencing.

Defense lawyer Todd Blanche filed the request to remove the judge on July 31, citing the presidential candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris as a new rationale for Merchan to step aside on the case.

The judge’s daughter Loren Merchan co-owns a political consulting firm called Authentic Campaigns, based in Chicago. The firm worked with Harris on previous campaigns and organized the fundraising group "White Dudes for Harris."

Merchan, in a decision dated Tuesday, found Blanche’s argument unpersuasive.

"Defendant has provided nothing new for this Court to consider," the judge wrote in his decision. "Counsel has merely repeated arguments that have already been denied by this and higher courts. Defense Counsel's reliance, and apparent citation to his own prior affirmation, rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, is unavailing. As such, Defendant's motion is again DENIED."

In May, a jury convicted Trump of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged that the former president tried to hide an affair that he had with adult film star Stormy Daniels from the voting public in the 2016 presidential election.

Prosecutors argued that Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen paid Daniels to stay quiet about the alleged tryst. The former president then reimbursed Cohen, but fraudulently marked the payments as business expenses. The jury took a day and a half to convict the former president.

In his decision published on Wednesday, Merchan pointed out that Trump’s defense team filed its first request for the judge’s recusal more than a year ago, in May 2023. Back then, Blanche argued that "the political and financial interest" of a family member of the court "creates an actual or perceived conflict of interest" because of rulings and decisions made by the judge.

Merchan points out that he had already received clearance to preside over the trial by the New York State Court administration’s Advisory Committee on Ethics, which found that a "judge's relatives remain free to engage in their own bona fide independent political activities."

Merchan was "cautioned" in July 2023 by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for several low-dollar donations that he made to several political campaigns, including $15 to Biden for President, according to court administration spokesman Al Baker.

In his decision filed on Tuesday, Merchan also pointed out that defense lawyers had missed several deadlines for filing post-conviction motions and that he did not merit the argument that Harris’s presidential campaign created a new circumstance. He called their recent motion "nothing more than an attempt to air grievances against this court's rulings."

The judge made it clear in his terse three-page ruling that he considered the issue settled.

"This court now reiterates for the third time, that which should already be clear — innuendo and mischaracterizations do not a conflict create. Recusal is therefore not necessary, much less required," he said.

Previously, a New York appeals court rejected an attempt to lift a gag order that had been in place since April, barring Trump from criticizing prosecutors, court staff and their family members.

The former president's defense team argued that their client's First Amendment rights were being violated and the prohibition inhibited his presidential campaign.

The appellate court panel cited affidavits submitted by prosecutors showing a dramatic increase in online threats against Bragg, his family and his staff.

It’s still to be determined whether or not the president’s sentence will go forward.

In previous motions, Blanche argued Trump’s case should be dismissed and the verdict should be set aside following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that extended presidents protection from prosecution while performing their official duties in the White House. The high court went further, saying that some acts that are not official but connected to the presidency are also protected from prosecution.

Blanche argued in his court submissions that text, tweets and emails from White House communications staff should not have been presented to the jury. Additionally, most of the Cohen reimbursement checks were sent to the White House for Trump’s signature.

Bragg’s office has opposed the defense lawyer’s argument saying that the charges stemmed from "unofficial acts" and "there is no immunity."

Merchan has said that he will decide on the immunity issue on Sept. 16, two days before the sentencing date "if such is still necessary."

Trump's defense team and prosecutors did not respond to requests for comment.