Ex-prosecutor explains why Trump's latest argument in criminal case is 'laughable'

Ten days before defendant Donald Trump is set to go on trial in his hush money case in a Lower Manhattan criminal courtroom, he and his attorneys are fixing for the judge to recuse himself. And they're doing so by raising concerns about past political contributions he made all the way to quoted comments he said in an article.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann believes the ammunition to get a recusal is weak.

"That is, again, laughable," he said, adding "the audience for this brief is not the court, it is the court of public opinion — and just a sliver of that court of public opinion."

ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president

The motion filed by Trump's team asks New York Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial slated to start on April 15, to step away because there is an "unacceptable appearance of impropriety."

The papers say Merchan has a conflict of interest involving his daughter's political consulting work for a company called Authentic, tied to various Democratic groups and candidates.

It reads: "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."

But Weissmann points out that the effort is old hat since Merchan already rejected a similar one last August and received clearance from the state's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics.

As far as Merchan's comments in an Associated Press article that ran in March — they don't add up to much, according to Weissmann.

Merchan spoke about prepping for a historic trial like the one involving the 45th president as "intense.”

He also said that he is trying “to make sure that I’ve done everything I could to be prepared and to make sure that we dispense justice."

“There’s no agenda here,” said Merchan in the article. “We want to follow the law. We want justice to be done. That’s all we want."

Weissmann again wondered about the relevance of making hay over those statements.

"In connection with all of those statements, he said, 'I want to be clear, I'm making general comments; none of it should be taken to reference this case,'" Weissmann paraphrased. "He was talking about what the court in general does, in front of it, what is the role of the rule of law and the judge in the system — but he pointedly said in that piece, 'I am not in any way going to talk about or reference this specific case.'"

Watch below or click the link.