There has been much talk about the decision of Judge Juan Merchan not to recuse himself from the Trump trial in Manhattan. I do believe that Merchan should have recused himself but I admit that this can be a difficult question. I wanted to address this question since it continues to be raised by the former president and others in the controversial trial.
Notably, many insisting that Merchan not recuse himself previously called for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any Trump-related cases due to his wife’s work for the GOP and Trump. Conversely, many who defended Thomas (including myself) are suggesting that recusal would have been warranted in this case.
To be honest, there is room for concern on both sides that bias may dictate our analysis. So let’s take a look at the comparison. In the end, I believe that it is reasonable to hold that neither Thomas nor Merchan were required to recuse. Merchan has credible arguments against mandatory recusal. However, I still believe that he should have recused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
I have previously written about why Thomas was not required to recuse himself from any election matter. I view those arguments as meritless.
Then why is Merchan any different. Thomas has a political activist wife and Merchan has a political activist daughter. Loren Merchan is the president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based political consulting firm with clients including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a large Democratic fundraiser.
It is also troubling that this was not a random selection. The chief administrative judge picked Merchan due to his supervision of other Trump-related cases.
New York law 100.3 e(1)d(iii) states “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”
The argument of critics is that the daughter is obviously within “the sixth degree of relationship” and would be “substantially affected” by a conviction with her Democratic donors. The problem with this argument is that any child involved in political activisim could be accused of being substantially affected by a conviction with political implications. The question is the limiting principle. Frankly, in another Trump related case (like the one involving the Trump corporation) I would not view the personal donations or the daughter’s major political role to be as problematic. It is this unique case and this historic moment that tips the balance for me.
The reason for my view in favor of recusal is three-fold.
First, Merchan is the trial judge, not one of nine justices in an appellate review. While the recusal standard is the same for trial and appellate judges (though Supreme Court justices are not technically subject to those rules), the context for a trial judge is different. Merchan would make highly sensitive decisions in a trial where appeals are limited until after a possible conviction. He would then have to make immediate decisions on the admissibility of evidence or objections at trial.
Second, this is no ordinary trial as the first prosecution of a former American president. Recusal is a judgment call on not just actual conflicts but the appearance of a conflict. His daughter is a major Democratic operative and raised a large amount of money for people like Schiff who have targeted Trump. With many Americans viewing this case as politically motivated (as I do), Merchan seriously undermined the credibility of the process by refusing to step aside. The result was not just his family’s political interests being raised by critics, but a lead prosecutor who came directly from the Biden Justice Department and was once a paid DNC adviser.
Finally, with Trump, critics were calling for recusal in any Trump or election related case. This is a case that specifically seeks to put Trump in jail. There was a stronger case for recusal of Thomas in a case dealing with the compelled release of material that might have included his wife’s communications. The latter arguments were ridiculously overbroad in my view. This case seeks to jail Trump where the family connection is more concerning.
Ultimately, it comes down to judgment. “Not only must judges actually be neutral, they must appear so as well.” People v. Novak, 30 N.Y.3d 222, 226 (2017); 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §100.2 (“A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.”). While the New York bar has supported Merchan in his decision, it has stressed that such decisions are very contextual with a case-by-case analysis. New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 673 (1995)(“Whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is necessarily a question of fact in each case. Even if the judge believes that he or she can be impartial, the judge should recuse himself or herself if an objective, disinterested observer could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality.”). I believe that the balance and appearances in this case heavily militate in favor of recusal.
Judge Merchan, in my view, used poor judgment in refusing to step aside in the interests of both his court and justice. Again, while I consider this is a tough call in many respects, I believe that Merchan did not serve the interests of his court or public in failing to step aside. There are other judges who do not have such a strong family connection to the political campaign against Trump. The American people and the court deserved a judge who was free of this excess baggage.
Jonathan Turley is wrong when he says that Juan “The Con” Merchan’s daughter Loren Merchan is within a “sixth degree relationship.” A sixth degree relationship can only be any of the following: Second cousin once removed, Half second cousin, First cousin three times removed, and Half first cousin twice removed. Juan “The Con” Merchan is not a “second cousin once removed, nor a half second cousin, nor a first cousin three times removed, nor a half first cousin twice removed.” A daughter cannot simultaneously be a cousin, a second cousin, a third cousin, a first cousin of a second cousin three times removed, or a second half-cousin of a third cousin four times removed.
Loren Merchan has every right to generate millions of dollars of cash for Joe Biden’s benefit. If she were making the millions of dollars to give to her Dad, then, yes, that would be a violation of Juan “The Con” Merchan’s duties. But nobody has been able to prove that Juan “The Con” personally benefitted from the millions of dollars raised by his daughter thanks to her Dad’s courtroom directives and findings.
While it’s true that Loren Merchan treated Daddy Juan “The Con” Merchan to 3 elegant dinners during the last month, held at the Central Park Club on the 100th floor of Central Park Tower, costing in excess of $9,356 per dinner on average, neither Loren nor Juan “The Con” Merchan actually paid that tab. All those dinners were paid by Putin-Xi-Rockefellers-Soros PAC Fund for Joe Biden. Nothing wrong with that.
poor jnathan- a once respected legal commentator has joined the ranks of trump sychophants-hopefully he gets along with greg jarett, mike lee, ted cruz and andy mccarthy-jenny was an active participant in 1/6- merchan’s daughter works for a consulting firm- she actually gets paid- unlike jenny, who’s simply a slobbering sychophant-jonathan is simply in the tank for a mentally ill narcissistic seditionist-its not complicated- by the way- i voted for trump- twice
Desperate name-calling should not be confused with rational argumentation. Were you sober when you wrote this?
“This is an ordinary trial . . .”
If it is now “ordinary” to try a person for an unnamed crime, and for misdemeanors with expired statutes of limitations — then we’re all screwed.
If it is now “ordinary” to gag a defendant, while leaving prosecution witnesses free to spew their bile — then just start with “guilty” and go right to sentencing.
At this point in the trial there can be no doubt that there is not only the appearance of bias but actual, and vicious, bias. The rulings of the political activist judge are clear and undeniable evidence of it. There is no way to justify his ridiculous decision to allow the non-evidence of horseface, and was clearly intended to overwhelm the reason – what little of it might be found in a Manhattan jury – of the jury and had no probative value whatsoever for any of the allegeded crimes htis witchhunt is allegedly about.
If Turley ever bothered to read his own comment section, he’d realize that his no-censorship/no-rules dream has turned into a nightmare by inspiring the wretched refuse banned by every other site on the web to come HERE to spew their vitriol and ignorance.
I am sure Turley does not read these comments. I am also fairly certain that he does not write this stuff. He may have written the pieces in the beginning, but now I think he is just a paid shill for Fox.
Think about this. To maintain a complex website like this with sufficient bandwidth and such a huge amount of storage for historical posts would cost several thousand dollars a month. He has not monetized the website. There are no ads.
So why is he doing it?
The answer is that Fox is publishing this stuff under his name to keep the MAGA mob happy.
Turley is simply collecting a paycheck from Fox.
@ScottAdamsSays
“If I were authoring the Simulation, the key witnesses against Trump would be a porn star and a guy who is a huge dick. And together they would screw Biden’s re-election chances while Alvin Bragg watched.”
I can’t help noticing that the same motley crew of posters is here all day every day.
Are any of you gainfully employed or are you all incels living in your mother’s basement?
I guess, like me, some of you may be retired and somewhat infirmed, but the foul language, childish taunts and insults are not really something that one expects from those of advanced years. The level of discourse is more like that of middle school bullies.
It didn’t use to be that way on this blog. In the past I learned something useful. Nowadays I learn only that there are real idiots out there who can’t keep their mouths shut.
This is no different than what occurs in the comments section of the NY Post and others that allow comments. There are hundred of trolls that prowl these sites typing their left-wing talking talking points. Many are paid by David Brock of Media Matters. They’re usuall commenting during the day because Brock doesn’t pay overtime and at night most of them are stoned.
And they really do act like a gang of middle school bullies.
Some of the comments are utterly incomprehensible. They seem to be using strange code words that only the gang understands. What on earth is a “lawn boi”.
I wonder if you have to have a double super secret decoder ring to join the gang.
Agreed. Years ago there were intelligent posts by thoughtful posters. Whether I agreed or disagreed, they provided interesting insight. Now I rarely read the posts, nor bother to comment. When I do skim them, it’s often the same childish back-and-forth taunts and I promptly drop off the site. It’s a shame what this blog has degenerated to. I believe in not censoring posters who add something useful, but the infantile personal taunts add nothing to the discussion and only serve to alienate people who may have once been regular contributors.
Any time a blog like this develops a following of serious people discussing serious issues, trolls like that jump in to be disruptive, honestly it’s part of the radicals play book. It’s hoy they censor content they dont want others to find out.
Wait! Juanito Merchan???
It’s not Juanito, it’s the Big Picture.
_______________________________________
“It’s the [Obama], stupid!”
– James Carville
__________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
___________________
The American Founders left no memo for this clown-show parasite to fundamentally transform their nation.
If anything, the Founders denied his ancestors admission in 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (the Acts of which were never legally abrogated).
What the —- happened, America?
Maleducated citizens.
“Judge Merchan, in my view, used poor judgment in refusing to step aside in the interests of both his court and justice.”
It’s only “poor judgment” if one places a higher priority on “the interests of both his court and justice.” If one’s priorities are the best interests of Merchan’s family making money and the democrat party eliminating the opposition in the coming presidential election, then it’s a carefully-considered, almost-brilliant SCAM — the opposite of “poor judgment” in conspirators with no moral or ethical inhibitions.
The lack of morality or ethics is considered a functional ATTRIBUTE, not “poor judgment,” by many in the legal profession who consider ethics and morality to be a quaint fairy tale to be peddled to children the same way they are told that Santa Claus is real.
Like it or not, that’s the sad REALITY in a dubious legal profession where the REAL offense is being so clumsy as to get caught.
The professor does have a habit of falsely assuming good motives, but bad judgment. His position in legal academia and as a public intellectual requires that he keep up that pretense. But it is obvious to those of us who are not constrained by such external factors that most of the egregious things he writes about daily are motivated by evil intentions, not mere bad judgment.
Yes. And and it raises a real question about whether the Professor actually believes some of the things he writes or just considers himself a hired teller of fairy tales.
Recusal is not the point. Recusal is a legal effort.
The true effort is by hook and by crook to hang a guilty verdict of committing a phony felony on Trump for democrats to use to beat him in the election.
This trial has absolutely nothing to do with justice. To even say that makes you part of the problem.
Correct.
One of Alvin Bragg’s paralegals, Jaden Jarmel-Schneider, admitted on the stand that the prosecutors deleted call records between Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson.
The prosecution submitted the records into evidence, but didn’t mention that they deleted some records. This alone should be grounds for a mistrial.
This entire trial is a farce.
Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett arguably perjured themselves in their Senate hearings under oath when the said that Roe v Wade was stare decisis and not likely to be overturned. They should all be in prison.
All of these Justices are devout practicing Catholics recommended for their appointments by the Federalist Society run by Leonard Leo, a fellow Catholic and fanatical zealot who attends Mass every single day. He is also a member of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta. He also makes regular trips to the Vatican multiple times a year. He believes that this country should be a theocracy where the Bible can overrule the Constitution. The only real difference between Leo and the Ayotollahs in Iran is that they are Muslim and he is Catholic.
Gorsuch obtained a PhD from the University of Oxford under a Marshall Scholarship. His supervisor was John Finnis, also a devout Catholic, who has strong views on the concept of “Natural Law”. He believes that the laws of governments are enforceable only to the extent that they conform to the Bible. This was a strong theme in Gorsuch’s PhD thesis.
Thomas arguably committed tax evasion when he failed to report forgiveness of a $267.230 loan for an RV.
Ginny Thomas arguably was involved in attempt to overthrow the government in collusion with others such as Giuliani, Meadows and others who stand indicted on these charges.
This applies to Merchan how?
Turley is making the connection to Thomas, whose picture is at the top of the post.
I am simply pointing out the criminal acts of Thomas, and expanding it to his criminal confederates on SCOTUS.
Criminal.
That word does not mean what you think it does.
What does it mean, pray tell.
We are all more interested you what YOU think it means
YOU accused Thomas of criminal acts
Perjury is a crime.
Tax evasion is a crime.
Do you believe these are not crimes?
They sure are and this man needs to be convicted for all hid crimes.
Belief is meaningless.
I know he has not been charged.
.
But I am forced to be redundant, that is a constitutional requirement, and you hate the Constitution
“Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett arguably perjured themselves in their Senate hearings under oath when the said that Roe v Wade was stare decisis and not likely to be overturned. “
When the truth is missing, and you make fallacious claims, we have to assume you are drinking again. No one can be this ignorant.
You’ve, arguably, qualified for a tinfoil hat.
You are lying. None of them ever said that Roe was unlikely to be overturned.
And you have no idea whether Thomas reported the forgiven loan or paid tax on it. His tax returns are not public, and are none of your business, just like everyone else’s. The IRS knows, and if he had done anything wrong it would have pounced on the opportunity to go after him; therefore the fact that it hasn’t means it had nothing to go after him for.
Anthony Welters loaned Thomas $267,230. It was an interest only loan
The Senate Finance Committee subpoenaed Welters for documents related to the loan. He cooperated and produced a hand written loan agreement with an interest rate of 7.5%. He also produced a single cancelled check from Thomas for $20,042.25, which was interest for 1 year. He could not produce any evidence that Thomas made any other payments.
Welters also produced a hand written note to Thomas, dated November 22, 2008, in which Welters stated the loan was forgiven.
Therefore, the individual who loaned the money to Thomas is now on record that Thomas made only one payment, and that the loan was forgiven.
As for the IRS. You are correct. We do not know if Thomas reported the loan forgiveness. But we do know that he is required to report all debts and loan forgiveness on his annual financial disclosure form that all Federal judges are required to make.
He failed to report to make those reports.
Truley’s attempt to excuse his bias is woefully inadequate. He actually made the case for Thomas need to recuse himself far stronger than Mercahn. The reason that Merchan’s daughter will directly benefit is devoid of any detail as to how. Nobody can specifically say how will she benefit and how it will help her. Only that it looks like it will and by saying that it will is not enough. Thomas’s wife on the other hand IS directly involved and we know because of the text messages and her direct contact with people involved. This shouldn’t be a difficult decision.
In his column Turley is just making a long winded excuse for why he is being dishonest with himself. It’s obvious he’s biased and he acknowledges he is. That’s all he needs to say, but he struggles and labors under the weight of reason trying to find an excuse and he can’t. All he can do is make one long convoluted excuse seeming to be objective about the two judges, Thomas and Merchan, and ultimately succumbing to his bias and obligation to maintain the Fox News narrative.
As a lawyer he should be able to recognize the irony about being in his position. He’s accusing Merchan of not recusing himself because his daughter seems like she would benefit from a Trump conviction. The law requires there be a direct concrete benefit not only to his daughter, but to Merchan as well. Turley, by his own reasoning and that of Merchan’s critics should avoid writing columns about Merchan because he is employed by Fox News because they have an interest and benefit for pushing the removal of Merchan. If that sounds ridiculous it’s because it does, but Turley is saying Merchan should recuse for the same reason. Because there is some sort of connection and some implied benefit to his employer Turley should not be writing columns about Merchan’s recusal. Pretty funny.
George: thank you. I perceive 2 glaring problems with Turley’s analysis: 1. Ginni Thomas was DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the insurrection. She was even at the Ellipse, but it doesn’t appear that she actually entered the Capitol building; 2. A wife that the jurist lives and sleeps with is much closer in relation and therefore, much more prone to being influenced than an adult daughter who doesn’t live at home. For all we know, Judge Merchan may not agree with his daughter’s politics. And, Judge Merchan mostly sustains the objections of Trump’s attorneys, and he has even interjected objections when they failed to object. His objectivity is not subject to question, except in MAGA world.
Anyway, maybe Turley might cut back on his partisan BS soon. The Trump campaign listed about 15 judges they would appoint to the SCOTUS–all vetted by the Federalist Society, of course–guess who ISN’T on that list? You can probably guess who’s at the top–Judge Ho.
Gigi
We were having a discussion on declassification process
You and I agree there is a defined process.
But you never answered my question as to who writes and controls that process.
We can get to an agreement if we agree, on a step by step basis
Look up Executive Order 13526, especially Part 3–“Declassification and Downgrading”.
EXCELLENT ! ! !
See what happens when you can find common ground?
Under who’s authority is does that executive order control the Classification Eco system. The President of the United States.
And from the Executive order 13526 is this provision
Mandatory Declassification Review.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b)
b)”Information originated by the incumbent President or the incumbent Vice President; the incumbent President’s White House Staff or the incumbent Vice President’s Staff; committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section”
Strange you can find the answer, and yet could not cut and paste the relevant section YOU provided to me.
Almost like someone told you, but you never actually read the order.
“INFORMATION ORIGINATED BY THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT OR THE INCUMBENT VICE PRESIDENT…etc.” …THAT SOLELY ADVISE AND ASSIST THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT….”. Trump didn’t “ORIGINATE” any of the documents he stole–like nuclear secrets, classified sources and methods, or the nuclear submarine capabilities he leaked to the Australian billionaire he was trying to impress. None of the documents he stole were used SOLELY to “advise or assist” him in doing anything. A Memo or similar document created SOLELY to “advise” the President is what this passage means. That Executive Order does not say that a POTUS automatically declassifies anything he can get his hands on, nor does it say that he can take classified documents home with him when he leaves office.
None of the documents he stole were used SOLELY to “advise or assist” him in doing anything. A Memo or similar document created SOLELY to “advise” the President is what this passage means
Gigi, the entirety of the Executive Branch, ALL the agencies, serve no other purpose than to solely advise and assist the President. Every classified document they create, only exists, to advise and
Does the Attorney General have the Constitutional power to prosecute crimes against the People?
If so, Where does that power come from? The constitution? Nope. No enumerated constitutional power for an Attorney General.
Does the Secretary of State have the power to negotiate with a foreign power? Where did the secretary get that power?
Power.
I gave away the answer. You still don’t get this. No matter what you think Smith has Charged in the documents case, think power. As in a superior power to challenge the actions of the President.
Another tip. Think Separation of powers. Under what direction is the Judicial branch going to use in overturning the actions of Executive Branch.
Separation of Power.
You are being to logical, remember you have to use feelings to get people like that to hear you.
Gigi, you editing with etc. You intentionally omitted committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist
I’ve been cordial and cooperative, and you intentionally deceive.
E.O. 13526 does not apply to Presidents. It’s for the underlings to follow.
“Insurrection” gives you away.
@George
George’s attempt at gaslighting us is blah, blah, blah; blah blah blah, blah, blah, blah blah *approved talking point*.
Save it for people that are too stupid to think for themselves. The readers of this particular blog are not those people. Give your paycheck back; your employers picked the wrong folks to pick on or try to chip away at. Pfft. You are a clown, ‘George’. And you’d better believe that we represent the admittedly, shamefully, small number of people that actually vote for things.
@James,
Obviously you don’t know what gaslighting means. If you want to dispute my point you’re welcome to it. Falsely accusing me of being paid to post or having handlers is the first thing people too stupid to think for themselves say. You’re not offering anything of value. All you offer is whining and complaining. Why not just offer YOUR point of view and defend it or concede that there are valid points to consider. Turley showed he’s struggling between his bias and reason. Obviously his bias is not going to cede to reason because of his obligations and expectation that his views are contractually linked to the Fox News narrative. He’s getting paid to be biased and we all know how addictive attention and fame is. It’s the same thing Trump enjoys. Turley is no more entitled to that, but it comes at the expense of his reputation and credibility and it has suffered a great deal.
“ people that are too stupid to think for themselves. The readers of this particular blog are not those people.”
No, this is Turley’s core audience. These kinds of people are exactly what he relies on for attention. Because they are the easiest to fool and convince. It’s the same formula Fox News has relied on for years, because it works. I don’t blame him for wanting to be a part of that. It’s his prerogative and his choice. But that does not come without consequences or risk of ridicule.
Obviously his bias is not going to cede to reason because of his obligations and expectation that his views are contractually linked to the Fox News narrative. He’s getting paid to be biased
You, or anyone that posts here has challenged his conclusion on the Law, or Constitution.
If you are claiming he is wrong, get to it. Times a wasting
Iowan, you are apparently under the impression that Turley’s article is an ethical argument, not a legal one. That was your misguided understanding of his [STATUTORY] reference to the appearance of impropriety.
So, why now do you attack someone else by asking for challenge of Turley’s “conclusion on the Law, or Constitution.”
It seems your understanding of Turley’s post differs by the hour. So, which is it?
New George, it is hard to find someone as ignorant of the rules as you. In this case the Supreme Court is treated differently than other judges.
@S. Meyer,
I have noticed you have a tendency to project your own shortcomings onto others to hide your lack of understanding issues. Rather than attack other’s why not offer your own opinion on the issue and pose a reasonable rebuttal?
The Supreme Court shouldn’t be treated differently because it’s the Supreme Court. If Justice Thomas clearly needs to recuse himself because his wife is directly involved in activities on cases he will have to decide. But making the excuse that the Supreme Court is different it’s fair for him not to recuse. Turley is trying to justify with instances where judges or justices should have recused themselves by making a bad comparison between the two.
Ginny Thomas was directly involved in the Jan 6 attempt to unlawfully overturn the election. She was in contact with lawmakers and lawyers for Trump urging them to help Trump with his idea to unlawfully force the VP to do what he cannot do constitutionally. Turley acknowledged in passing that Thomas should have recused himself, but that it was his choice to recuse or not. I understand why Turley doesn’t want to go too far in criticizing the justice for his position or for Trump’s own series of problematic court cases. He doesn’t want to alienate the following he has carefully cultivated. To do so would send him to the bin rather quickly and resume his duties as just another law professor at a university.
“The Supreme Court shouldn’t be treated differently “
New George, they are treated differently. You demonstrate no knowledge and, therefore, lie. These aren’t my shortcomings. They are yours,
Regardless where one stands with Trump, one has to question this apparent conflict of interest. I find it interesting that the good Professor used Justice Thomas as his comparison subject. Both Trump and Thomas share a unique comparison. They are both held to standards nobody else has to endure.
I do not doubt either the Judge or Justice’s integrity. Yet the screaming of the Justice and crickets for the Judge say tons. Politics. The one problem that I have with the Judge is he was chosen and not randomly assigned. That just smells bad. This Judge was chosen in particular in a NY State court that has been nothing but hostile. Maybe it is all on the up and up, but I am not so sure and that is the fail.
No, it is NOT a tough call- simply look at the law, as stated above –
“New York law 100.3 e(1)d(iii) states “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.””
Is his daughter within the sixth degree of relationship – yes.
Is his wife also his spouse -yes.
Does this proceeding substantially affect the wife and daughter’s interest, as Democrat activists – yes.
Ipso facto, he should have recused himself.
Since it’s pretty clear, then any judgment against the defendant should be vacated on appeal on due process grounds, right?
How is it “pretty clear”? What is the “direct, personal, substantial, or pecuniary interest” that exceeds mere speculation?
How is it “pretty clear”?
Really? If you don’t think think there’s even an appearance of partiality, then you’re living on a different plant.
The appearance of impropriety is an objective standard. I know you know this.
There has to be something more than a general connection between his daughter and half of America.
Should all Trump appointed judges be forced to recuse because of who they were appointed by?
Absolutely not. But there’s the attenuated “appearance” given they could potentially feel obligated to give the person who gave them a job a better deal than other defendants. Absent any concrete evidence, that is not enough to rise to the objective standard required for recusal.
“Does this proceeding substantially affect the wife and daughter’s interest, as Democrat activists – yes.”
How do you arrive at this conclusion? What crosses the “substantial interest” threshold here?
The case law in NY clarifies that the interest CANNOT merely be speculative or possible. See Kilmer v. Moseman, 124 A.D.3d 1195, 1198 (3rd Dep’t 2015).
So, the connection must be concrete, such as evidence that the digital marketing agency’s work for the Biden campaign is in some way financially tied to the outcome of the case. There is no such concrete connection that was alleged by defense counsel.
Floyd–Uh, no. The standard is whether “the judge’s impartiality might REASONABLY be questioned…”. What REASONABLE basis is there to question Judge Merchan’s impartiality? Just because Turley can come up with an argument does not equate to a REASONABLE basis to question his impartiality.
Because of his daughter’s politics?–She is an adult, living away from home. Judge Merchan has mostly sustained the objections of Trump’s counsel. He has bent over backwards to avoid taking the bait and jailing Trump who has violated the gag order TEN TIMES! The good judge KNOWS Trump is baiting him to put him in the slammer so he can play the victim. No other litigant could get away with what Trump has gotten away with–just yesterday, he was audibly cursing while Stormy Daniels testified. Judge Merchan called a bench conference and told Trump’s counsel to control him, and that he didn’t call him out in front of the jury for this to avoid embarrassing him. No one else could get away with something like this. The last hearing I attended, a man in the gallery was nodding his head and gesturing to the woman in the witness box. The judge immediately halted the proceedings and told him to stop. The next time he did this–she threw him bodily out of the courtroom. If he hadn’t left, he would have been jailed. He didn’t get 10 chances like Trump has had.
@Gigi
If you ever wondered what flatulence would sound like coming out of the wrong end – here you go. Internet trolls have introduced an entirely new biological anomaly; no, not trans, but rather the mouth-an*s. All of us smell it, none of us care to. At least in this case, f*arts are a universal biological function that bridges the gender gap. 🤷🏻♂️ Still, pew, and what in the name of God do you eat???
Damn, girl!!
@floyd,
“ Does this proceeding substantially affect the wife and daughter’s interest, as Democrat activists – yes.”
How? Just saying it does without explaining how is not enough. If you can’t say precisely how it substantially affect his daughter or how exactly will she benefit from it then you have no case.
The law requires a concrete reason. Not an assumption or what could happen. It must be a direct and clear benefit. Judge Cannon has a substantial benefit or even an appearance of obligation to help Trump because he appointed her despite not having the experience or qualifications to hold her position. She’’s already been overturned twice by a higher court because of her poor and often bad rulings due to her lack of experience. The appearance of bias is already there for her. She’s technically obligated to recuse herself from the case, but we all know that’s not going to happen. So why would Merchan be expected to recuse for far less?
Does this proceeding substantially affect the wife and daughter’s interest, as Democrat activists – yes.
No, it does not. There is no information that her income will be affected in any way by the outcome of this trial. And that is the standard.
The same is true for Ginny Thomas. If a case ever comes before the court in which she is involved with one of the parties, then he will have to recuse himself from that case. If a case ever comes that would affect her income, he would have to recuse himself. But the mere fact that she’s a Republican activist doesn’t mean he has to recuse from any case that affects the Republican Party! The fact that she supports Trump doesn’t mean he has to recuse from any case that affects Trump! That would be ridiculous, as I’m sure you agree. But the same is true for Merchan’s daughter. She’s not involved with any of the parties, she doesn’t stand to make even one penny more if he’s convicted than if he’s acquitted, so her only stake in the outcome is the same as all the tens of millions of Democrat supporters, and that doesn’t create even the appearance of a conflict.
Mr. Turley’s thoughts on this issue are correct. Judge Merchan should have stepped down to assure both sides that this trial will be handled correctly. Since he has not, the Right will holler if Mr. Trump is convicted and the Left will become more smug regarding Mr. Trump. In other words, both sides will become more and more intrenched with blaming the other. No doubt, Judge Merchan has made a name for himself in history, however, what kind of name will it be?
Ginny Thomas was a material witness and an unindicted co-conspirator in the very case that was before SCOTUS. Their own guidlines that they just released says that Thomas should recluse himself. That is much more of a conflict of interests then the judge’s daughter being in Democratic politics. She has zero connection to the case at hand.
No, she wasn’t. She has no stake in any case that has come before the court. And the same is true of Ms Merchan in this case.
It is a very difficult decision on whether to recuse from a case. There has to be more than a generalized allegation of bias – otherwise the entire judicial system could grind to a halt. Easier to do in some cases than others