Conservative media have been preoccupied for weeks with New York Judge Juan M. Merchan, who is presiding over the former president’s criminal trial in Manhattan Donald Trump.
Trump has long attacked Merchan and his family in social media posts and on his campaign website. But Merchan only rose to prominence in conservative media after he issued a formal silence order against the former president, banning attacks on several people involved in the trial, including jurors and witnesses.
Since then, right-wing commentators, particularly on Fox News, have condemned the judge almost daily in their coverage of the trial. They have portrayed Merchan’s statements as biased, decried small donations he made to Democrats in 2020 and suggested that his connection to his daughter, a Democratic political consultant, made him unfit to oversee the case.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
Liberal media have focused less on Merchan, concentrating their coverage of the trial on the charges against Trump and those close to him. But some smaller outlets have praised Merchan for suppressing Trump.
Here’s how it played out:
FROM THE RIGHT
Breitbart
In addition to labeling the trial as straight news, Breitbart has also paid close attention to what Republicans see as Merchan’s pro-democracy bias.
Merchan donated $35 to groups supporting Democrats in the 2020 election, including $10 to a group called “Stop Republicans.” That, along with his daughter’s role as an adviser to Democratic candidates, prompted Trump to call on the judge to recuse himself. (A state ethics panel dismissed a complaint against Merchan last year with a warning about his donations. Merchan has denied any wrongdoing.)
Matthew Whitaker, former acting attorney general under Trump, wrote for Breitbart on April 23 that Merchan should recuse himself so “we can put the blindfold on Lady Justice again.” He added that Merchan “benefited handsomely” from the lawsuit because of his daughter’s work on the campaigns of prominent Democrats.
Jesse Binnal, a lawyer for Trump, misleadingly described Merchan as “a Biden donor” in an April 16 episode of Breitbart News Daily, the site’s political podcast. He also misleadingly claimed that the judge had a “vested financial interest” in the case.
“How can a judge be a donor?” asked Mike Slater, the host of Breitbart’s podcast. “Seriously, how is that allowed?”
FROM THE RIGHT
The Washington Times
Deroy Murdock, a conservative commentator, took a similar approach when writing for The Washington Times on April 29. Merchan, he said, “belongs in the Conflicted Jurist Hall of Fame.” His daughter’s political work and even small donations, Murdock wrote, were evidence of bias that Democrats would find unacceptable if Hillary Clinton were on trial.
“Imagine her judge donating $15 to Mr. Trump in 2016 and $10 each to the Conservative Turnout Project and Stop Democrats,” Murdock wrote.
Cheryl Chumley, an editor and opinion writer for The Washington Times, wrote on May 1 that Merchan had fined Trump for “exercising his God-given, constitutionally protected rights to free speech.”
FROM THE LEFT
MeidasTouch
Michael Popok, a lawyer and host of a podcast from MeidasTouch, a liberal media network, said Merchan could have been tougher on Trump.
“The only reason Donald Trump doesn’t dig his heels in at Rikers Island while the trial is going on, and sleeps in Trump Tower every night, is because Judge Merchan allowed it,” Popok said in a YouTube video on April 16.
When Merchan issued a gag order on March 26 banning the former president from attacking witnesses, prosecutors and jurors, he “immediately let Trump know that his tolerance for foolishness has run out,” wrote Ron Filipowski, a lawyer and editor. -head of MeidasTouch.
FROM THE LEFT
Daily Kos
Walter Einenkel, a writer for the progressive news site, wrote in defense of Merchan on May 13. The judge, Einenkel argued, was not “conflicted” as conservatives said, because he had been appointed to his position by a judge appointed by a judge. Republican.
After Trump said he was “not allowed to testify” because of the silence order against him, Merchan said the order would not prevent him from testifying. On May 3, writer Mark Sumner praised the judge’s response to Trump.
“The idea that Trump should not testify is a ridiculous reading of Merchan’s order,” Sumner wrote, with a headline calling Trump’s claims an “absurd lie.”
c.2024 The New York Times Company
