George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley is totally against Judge Juan Merchan’s appointment as the presiding judge on former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan.

Airing his reservations on the choice of judge during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” on Monday, Turley noted that Merchan is a supporter of President Joe Biden and has made a political contribution to his campaign in the past.

Questioning why Merchan is presiding over the case at all, Turley pointed out that he made a $15 donation to Biden’s 2020 election campaign in addition to a $10 donation he made to a group called “Stop Republicans” and another $10 donation to a movement called “Progressive Turnout Project.”

“A lot of people are confused by this because it’s very clear that they say you can’t make political contributions. Well, he did,” Turley said.

Arguing that the small size of the donations does not matter, Turley added, “And the fact that it is ‘de minimis’ or small, really, I think, misses the point. You make donations like that to show your support, that’s what that $15 did.”

“What’s also concerning for many is that Merchan was not randomly selected, he was hand-picked as the judge for this case, and many of us don’t understand it. You have a judge who is donor to the president, whose daughter is a major Democratic operative, you would think this would be an easy call, there are plenty of other judges,” he continued.

Trump himself has complained in the past that the judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, works in a progressive political consulting firm that has worked for Biden’s campaign and other Democratic causes.

Noting how the people involved in the case bring in a dark shadow, Turley stated, “He’s not going to be held accountable to the bar association, but this is one of the many aspects of this trial that are troubling to those who view this as the weaponization of the system.”

Turley went on to criticize Merchan’s handling of the case, particularly taking issue with the judge’s permission of arguments about election violations even though that has nothing to with the case in question.

“He’s allowed this jury to hear over and over again about election violations. Donald Trump did not commit an election violation. There’s no such violation in this case connected to his payments to [Michael] Cohen. My assumption is that the jury thinks that there were and that you’re allowing Cohen and [former National Enquirer publisher David] Pecker effectively to inform the jury on federal election law until you issue an instruction,” he said.