As to your Point the First, I'm pretty sure that what most people are complaining about is that Cannon is preventing the case from going to trial at all. Obvs., most people on DU think Trump is guilty as sin. And everyone on DU who is not sworn as a juror in the case has a perfect right to that opinion. In any case, Cannon is clearly, inarguably, slow-walking the case. That prevents it from coming to any conclusion: guilty, not guilty, hung jury.
I agree with your Point Number Two. Cannon is under not the slightest obligation to recuse based on her appointment.
On your Third Point, I suspect you can give me examples of rash and inaccurate statements about the potential removal process. You are correct that Cannon's done nothing that is cognizable as misconduct sufficient to support a motion to remove.
But that's not the analysis I've been seeing. What I've seen speculated (and, again, I'm talking about people who seem to have some knowledge what they're talking about) is that if Cannon denies Smith's gag order motion, he'll appeal that. If the higher court holds that Cannon is in error, it will be the third time. And there's some notion that the Court of Appeals will decide to remove her from the case just because she's fucking up too much. It's my understanding (and I'll happily read contrary chapter and verse if you've got it), that the COA can do that on its own dime, and needs no formal finding of misconduct.
= new reply since forum marked as read