In a striking call for accountability, an author’s recent investigation into judicial conduct has spotlighted Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw a high-profile case involving former President Donald Trump, for alleged bias and ethical breaches.
According to Breitbart, this story centers on claims of misconduct by Merchan during the Stormy Daniels case, with the author of Breaking the Law arguing that his actions and family ties suggest a miscarriage of justice and potential election interference.
The author of Breaking the Law has examined six significant legal cases against Trump that unfolded between his two presidential terms. These cases, according to the author, reveal clear irregularities that warrant thorough investigations and possible criminal prosecution. Amid this broader scrutiny, the Department of Justice has already launched a criminal probe into New York Attorney General Letitia James, while the Office of the Special Counsel is reviewing Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Last week, the author compiled a list of individuals who should face DOJ examination for their roles in Trump’s legal battles. After further consideration, Judge Merchan, who presided over the case involving adult film star Stormy Daniels, emerged as a key figure requiring intense review. This case, often mischaracterized as a hush money matter, was officially about falsifying business records, and Merchan’s oversight has drawn sharp criticism.
Merchan, described as a committed Democrat from a family with strong partisan leanings, is accused of displaying bias in his judicial decisions. Critics point to his donation of $10 to a group named “Stop Republicans,” which the author claims violates New York’s judicial conduct rules against political contributions by active judges. Additionally, Merchan is noted as a contributor to former President Joe Biden’s campaign, an act the author argues breaches Section 100.5 of the state’s judicial ethics code.
Further complicating the issue, Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, serves as president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based consulting firm with deep ties to Democratic causes. The firm has worked with clients like Senate Majority PAC and Adam Schiff, a former congressman and current California senator who led Trump’s first impeachment trial.
According to the New York Post in March 2024, Loren’s company raised at least $93 million for the election cycle, while Open Secrets reports a figure of over $36 million, positioning her as a major Democratic fundraiser.
During the trial, Merchan imposed a gag order on Trump, barring him from publicly discussing witnesses, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, related family members, and others involved. Violations of this order carried potential fines or up to 30 days in jail, though its status remains uncertain as it was never officially lifted post-trial. Trump himself commented on this ambiguity in March 2025, saying, “Nobody knows. The case is over and nobody knows if it still applies. He never took it off.”
He added, “You know why? Because he knows how crooked it was.” Trump also expressed frustration over the trial’s impact, telling reporters outside the courtroom, “I should be out campaigning now instead of sitting in a very cold courthouse all day long.” He further stated, “This is a Biden prosecution. It’s election interference at a level that nobody in this country has ever seen before.”
In the courtroom, Merchan permitted Stormy Daniels to testify, during which she shared explicit details of alleged encounters with Trump, though her humor reportedly failed to resonate. The author claims DA Bragg upgraded a misdemeanor charge of falsifying records to a felony by tying it to a secondary offense of influencing an election through undefined unlawful means, bypassing the expired statute of limitations. Merchan’s jury instructions introduced a third, unspecified crime, allowing jurors to select from various options without needing unanimous agreement on the specific violation, only that one occurred.
The author argues this approach infringed on Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to know the charges against him and his Fifth Amendment right to fair process. Additionally, Merchan prevented Trump’s defense from presenting Bradley A. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission member, as a witness to clarify election law, a move the author suggests shielded Bragg’s prosecution strategy. After Trump’s conviction, Merchan scheduled sentencing for Jan. 10, 2025, during the transition period between Biden’s and Trump’s administrations, which the author views as an attempt to label Trump a felon before his return to office.
The author contends that overturning this conviction could take years, intentionally diverting Trump’s focus during his presidency. Other concerns include the role of Matthew Colangelo, who transitioned from Biden’s DOJ to Bragg’s office to assist in the case, and the use of Michael Cohen’s Gmail data from prior Russia-related probes. The author frames this case, along with five others against Trump, as efforts to disrupt his campaign through legal entanglements or potential incarceration.
Trump himself has attributed the prosecution to higher powers, stating, “This all comes from in the White House.” He also called the situation with Loren Merchan’s Democratic fundraising a conflict, describing it as “the greatest conflict of interest of all time.” The author suggests that had Biden publicly deemed the prosecution unjust, the charges might have been dismissed.
These allegations collectively paint a picture of judicial overreach and political motivation, according to the author’s perspective in Breaking the Law. The push for a DOJ investigation into Merchan adds to a growing list of figures under scrutiny for their roles in Trump’s legal challenges. As this narrative unfolds, the debate over fairness in high-stakes political prosecutions continues to intensify, raising questions about the intersection of law and electoral politics.