Former President Donald Trump is actively seeking to overturn his 34 felony convictions related to falsifying business records. He is contesting the decision of a judge in his hush-money case, arguing that the judge, who donated $35 to Democratic causes in 2020, should have recused himself.

In a comprehensive document submitted to the Appellate Division, First Department of the New York Supreme Court, Trump’s legal team from Sullivan & Cromwell, including ex-Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, criticized Justice Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The attorneys assert that the judge’s involvement was improper due to alleged political biases.

Reports from Law&Crime have repeatedly covered Trump’s unsuccessful attempts to have Justice Merchan disqualified through various motions. These motions cited concerns over the judge’s daughter’s employment with Democratic entities and his political contributions.

Trump had also pursued direct legal action against the judge, challenging the gag orders issued in the proceedings, but these efforts did not yield favorable outcomes.

The same objections form a significant part of the former president’s detailed appeal submissions, which are publicly available for review.

Trump’s lawyers asserted that Bragg “manufactured felony charges” to impact the 2024 election on the strength of a “convoluted legal theory,” arguing the prosecution “should never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction.”

“The trial was fatally marred by the introduction of official Presidential acts that the Supreme Court has made clear cannot be used as evidence against a President,” the filing said. “The jury was instructed incorrectly, allowing a conviction without the unanimity required by both New York law and basic due process. Beyond these fatal flaws, the evidence was clearly insufficient to convict.”

On top of that “overwhelming error,” the filing argued Merchan should have recused himself but never did, even though the defense claimed to have, at minimum, established an “appearance of bias.”

“[T]he trial was conducted by a judge who refused to recuse himself despite having made political contributions to President Trump’s electoral opponents and despite having disqualifying family conflicts. For each of these independent reasons, President Trump’s conviction must be set aside,” the brief said.

Near the end of the brief, Trump attorneys dedicated a whole section to spelling out just why, in their view, Merchan should have recused himself from presiding over the case, starting with the $35 total he donated to ActBlue and the Stop Republicans PAC in 2020.

“These prohibited political contributions standing alone required recusal here. New York’s bright-line rule against such contributions exists to guard against the ‘heightened risk that the public … might perceive judges’ as biased towards or against ‘a particular political leader or party,’” the filing said. “That risk was at its apex in this extraordinary case.”

If Merchan had instead donated to Trump, DA Bragg would have “rightly” flipped out, the brief continued.

“There is little doubt that DANY would have cried foul if Justice Merchan had donated $35 to President Trump’s 2020 campaign, and rightly so,” Trump lawyers said, asking the appellate division to “reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment.”