Donald Trump’s Latest ‘Garbage Motion’ Likely Doomed to Fail: Legal Analyst

Donald Trump’s motion to recuse the judge in his New York criminal trial has been labeled as “garbage” by a legal analyst who said it is unlikely to succeed.

The former U.S. president wants New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to step down from presiding over his trial, where he is accused of falsifying business records relating to hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Trump is accused of hiding payments to Daniels—given name Stephanie Clifford—to allegedly buy her silence about an affair she claimed they had. He is facing 34 counts of falsifying business records, but has pleaded not guilty to all charges and denies wrongdoing.

Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove filed the motion on Wednesday after getting approval from Merchan to do so.

In the filing, which was made public on Friday, they argue that the justice has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself from the trial because his daughter, Loren Merchan, has a financial stake in and has worked for the digital marketing agency Authentic. The group has worked with different Democratic groups since the 2020 election.

“Personal political views may not be a basis for recusal. But profiting from the promotion of a political agenda that is hostile to President Trump, and has included fundraising solicitations based on this case, must be. Accordingly, President Trump respectfully requests that the Court recuse itself,” the motion read.

The trial is set to start on April 15 and Merchan previously refused a similar request by Trump’s attorneys in August.

Norm Eisen, a legal analyst at CNN and a vocal Trump critic, slammed the motion and explained why he believed it was unlikely to be successful.

“NEW: Merchan has allowed Trump to file a motion to recuse him. But NO judge would grant this garbage motion,” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

“I explain in my forthcoming book #TryingTrump that NY ethics authorities have already said there’s no conflict!”

Newsweek contacted Trump’s representative, Steven Cheung, for comment by email on Saturday.

Eisen was referring to the August motion to recuse Merchan, who at the time consulted the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics about his daughter’s role at Authentic.

The committee found that the state’s case against Trump “does not involve either the judge’s relative or the relative’s business, whether directly or indirectly.”

“They are not parties or likely witnesses in the matter, and none of the parties or counsel before the judge are clients in the business. We see nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests,” the ruling said.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office wrote to Merchan earlier this week to advise him that nothing had changed since August’s ruling and that Trump’s arguments were nothing but “a daisy chain of innuendos.”

“There is simply nothing new here that would alter this Court’s prior conclusion,” the DA’s office said.

But Trump’s motion disagreed and said the fact he was now the presumptive Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential election changed everything.

It said that “his success in the primaries, which followed the Court’s ruling on the previous recusal motion, has cemented his status as a political target” of Authentic and Loren Merchan, and by extension any Democrats she worked with through the company.

Another political analyst, Andrew Weissmann, co-host of MSNBC’s podcast Prosecuting Donald Trump, questioned why the recent motion was only signed by attorneys Blanche and Bove and not Susan Necheles, who is also a part of Trump’s legal team.

“The most interesting ‘tell’ about this new Trump recusal filing is that it is NOT signed by one of the Trump defense lawyers on the NY criminal case and is only signed by Todd Blanche. That other lawyer, Susan Necheles, has not signed other submissions as well,” he posted on X.

Weissmann elaborated on his post to Newsweek.

“What I meant is it appears that one of the lawyers has refused to put her name on certain filings, filings that the court has itself noted in a written admonition may go beyond the scope of zealous advocacy and could be subject to sanctions,” the attorney explained. “It is exceedingly unusual to see a filing signed by only some but not all of the defense team.”

People in the replies of Weissmann’s post suggested Necheles would not want to sign the motion in case the court accused the attorneys of filing a “frivolous” claim. Newsweek has been unable to verify the claims.

Also referred to as a bad faith claim, “it refers to a lawsuit, motion or appeal that is intended to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Being found to have filed a frivolous claim could result in fines or a sanction for the signing attorney.

Newsweek contacted Necheles by email on Saturday for comment.