In August, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan, tasked with presiding over the criminal case against Donald Trump in Manhattan for 2016 “hush money payments” in violation of election laws, rejected Trump’s lawyers’ claims that the judge had disqualifying conflicts of interest and should recuse himself. The reasons for the recusal seemed a stretch at the time, easily the weakest being that, during the 2020 presidential campaign, Justice Merchan had donated the grand total of $15 to Joe Biden. Another was that the judge’s daughter, the president and chief operating officer of a digital marketing agency that has clients who are Democratic candidates, was obviously going to benefit financially Merchan’s decisions in the case.
Justice Merchan ruled, relying, he said, on the guidance of a state advisory committee on judicial ethics, that his impartiality could not “reasonably be questioned” based on “de minimus political contributions made more than two years ago” or his daughter’s business. The latter, he said, could not be substantially affected by the trial. Trump’s attorneys had “failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required” because of his daughter’s activities.
That was then. Now we have learned that two Democratic clients of Loren Merchan, the daughter of the judge and president of Authentic Campaigns, have raised at least $93 million in campaign donations using the hush-money case in their solicitation emails. One of the firm’s top clients is California Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead prosecutor (and liar) in Trump’s first impeachment trial. He has raised $20 million in donations since he began using the 34-count indictment against Trump in his fundraising appeals. Another client is the Senate Majority PAC, a major fundraising arm for the Democrats, for who “Get Trump!” is the prime directive. The PAC has raised $73.6 million since it began sending emails like this one following the ex-president’s indictment: “BREAKING NEWS: Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury. This is an important moment for our democracy, but our work isn’t over,” the group wrote in part.
Meanwhile, Daddy’s little girl has not helped matters by shooting off her mouth, as she did in 2019 during a podcast appearance suggesting that her father hated politicians like Trump. “I’ve actually had a couple conversations with my dad recently where he’s kind of like ‘I hate that politicians use Twitter,’ and like ‘it’s so unprofessional’ and you know, ‘that’s not how a politician should behave themselves,’ and I explain that like yeah I think there are a lot of instances where it is not used in, like when our President [Trump] tweets anything that he thinks, and like that’s not what he should be using it for,” the 34-year-old who talks like a 14-year-old said. This was before the current prosecution.
During a Truth Social orgy of inflammatory messages over the weekend, Trump wrote regarding the father and daughter, “This is a disgrace to our Legal System. Judge Merchan should be immediately sanctioned and recused, and this fake ‘case,’ only kept alive by the Highly Conflicted Judge, should be completely dismissed right away.” Later he wrote, “Judge Juan Merchan, a very distinguished looking man, is nevertheless a true and certified Trump Hater who suffers from a very serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. In other words, he hates me! His daughter is a senior executive at a Super Liberal Democrat firm that works for Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, the Democrat National Committee, Senate Majority PAC, and even Crooked Joe Biden.”
Constitutional law professor and criminal law attorney Alan Dershowitz opined that “there seems to be a basis for recusal of the father” based on his daughter’s activities. “Under the law, close relationships can sometimes constitute a basis for recusal.”
I’m disappointed in Dershowitz. This is the first sign I’ve seen that he is deliberately being a contrarian in opposition to the progressive legal establishment, and trying to carve out a niche for himself as the Principled Progressive who has the courage to reject unfair anti-Trump narratives. Sure, close relationships can sometimes constitute a basis for a judge’s recusal, but this doesn’t seem to be one of those times. Judges are presumed to have no substantive connections to the activities of their children, parents, spouses, and siblings. The presumed benefit Loren Merchand may get from the case against Trump is awfully attenuated to try to argue that it is likely to influence her father’s handling of the case—far more attenuated, in fact, than arguments that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s conservative activist wife creates a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety for him. Those arguments, it should be noted, are vehemently opposed by Republicans.
Judges are presumed to be fair, honest and unmoved by alleged conflicts unless they involve the judge’s own direct benefit from rulings or there is strong evidence that the interests of individuals close to him or her are warping the judge’s perceptions. I don’t see either here. If Merchan’s daughter were shown to have guaranteed that her father would slam Trump because she has his ear, that would be a different matter. Trump, of course, knows nothing about the ethical standards judges are held to. What he’s telling us is that his own decisions as President are influenced by their likely effects on his children.
Good to know. But it doesn’t mean that Justice Merchan should recuse himself.
Ethics Alarms 
I don’t think there is a conflict of interest. To the contrary, I think there is an unfortunately strong alignment of interests, and a whiff of potential bias against the defendant.
Having said that, I don’t think that whiff is strong enough (yet) for Merchan to recuse himself if he thinks he can be unbiased – we should rationally presume judges to be fair absent direct evidence to the contrary.
His daughter, however, would be well advised to keep absolutely silent about the case lest she inadvertently force Merchan to reconsider the potential appearance of impropriety. Continued fundraising on the case by his daughter, especially after recent reporting on the subject, will rationally be seen as problematic.
In fact, it would be better if all parties involved would shut the hell up about the case. Alas, Trump and TDS are both a thing.
If you want to be perceived as an impartial judge, you wouldn’t be donating ANY money to political campaigns. Would a judge who had donated to Trump’s campaign been assigned to this case? What if that judge had a daughter who was raising money for Trump’s campaign? Would such a judge have been removed already?
This is a judge who felt it was fine to donate to the ‘correct’ political campaign. He wasn’t worried if it made him seem partisan. He shouldn’t be assigned to a case that appears and is widely perceived as a government attack on an opposition political candidate. Just like state Democratic officials shouldn’t be allowed to resign from their position to work on a Trump prosecution team, you shouldn’t have judges that have any obvious biases working on these cases. This is the only time in history that any jurisdiction, much less multiple, were trying cases of the leading presidential candidate the year of a presidential election. The fact that all these cases come from and are tried by and in front of partisans loyal the to the trailing President makes it worse. These cases needed to be completely above board, not run by obvious Democratic Party operatives with biased judges and corrupt prosecutors. Anything else shows the justice system to be a political sham and how rigged the system is.
“Judges are presumed to be fair, honest and unmoved by alleged conflicts unless they involve the judge’s own direct benefit from rulings”..
Judge Engeron destroyed that presumption when it comes to Trump and the judiciary in Democrat strongholds.
You are probably right about the conflict of interest.
Of more concern to me is that the daughter is spouting about statements the Judge made that suggest prejudice against politicians who use Twitter in an unprofessional manner. (Granted, that is most politicians, but Trump sets a pretty high bar for unprofessional Twitter use.)
I would accuse him of prejudice, if it were me.
I recently accused a Judge of prejudice against my guy. The Court denied my motion to remove him, but then he must have accused himself because another Judge showed up. I kind of respect him for taking away that appeal issue by stepping down.
-Jut
A hearsay tale by a daughter who is 1) blathering on a podcast and 2) talks like a Barbie doll that’s been dropped on its head wouldn’t outweigh a judge who said, “I don’t know what she’s talking about,” would it?
maybe I missed it, but I don’t see him denying the statements attributed to him by his daughter.
I guess my question for you would be, assuming he said what she said he said, would that be a basis for his removal for bias?
-Jut
If he has, I haven’t seen it, but then he shouldn’t have to. I don’t believe that not liking or even ‘detesting” a practice engaged in by someone is grounds for recusal. Judges simply have to preside over cases involving people they don’t like: who liked John Gotti? We have to presumed a judge is professional enough to deal with his or her biases. That might be a fiction, but it’s an unavoidable one.
What we are really seeing isn’t a conflict of interest, but evidence of bias against the defendant. These are landmark cases and the courts really should be working to eliminate any hint of bias against Trump. They can’t do it, though, because the whole system is biased against Trump. They don’t have any Republican judges or prosecutors or unafilliated judges or prosecutors. They are all Democrats. They should be trying to find someone who at least appears to be unbiased on paper, however.
I agree.
however, Judges need to be extra diligent about their appearance in order to maintain trust.
his daughter, of course, is at fault for shooting off her mouth about things her dad said. She should know better.
the Judge’s fault is in failing to impress upon her the importance of discretion, particularly as she is in a political field. He should have told her that she can’t talk about him and, if he can’t trust her to do that, he is going to watch what he says around her.
it sucks, but it may be necessary.
-Jut
Update: Judge Mercham referred to Trump’s case as a Federal Insurrection Matter. Bias much?