To recap, Merchan should have recused himself: He is a partisan Democrat, he contributed to Biden’s campaign in violation of state ethics rules, and his daughter is a progressive operative who does lucrative campaign work for Democrats, including Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden (respectively, Trump’s current and former opponents in the November election). Nevertheless, Trump had already made recusal motions prior to and during the criminal trial, and Merchan had shot him down. The issue was already raised and decided — wrongly decided, but decided nonetheless. ...

Merchan continues, moreover, to insist that Trump’s reliance on his daughter’s work for Democrats — which Trump argues has become considerably more financially rewarding since Merchan was assigned to the case — is just “innuendo” which cannot create a conflict of interest. But of course, the standard that ethical lawyers and judges apply in the recusal context is whether participation in the case creates the appearance of impropriety. It is not necessary that there be an actual conflict, just enough evidence to cause reasonable people concern. Here, where there is an abundance of evidence from which a reasonable person could find an actual conflict, a good judge would voluntarily recuse, he or she wouldn’t have to be asked to do so. But that’s not how Judge Merchan rolls.