I have a couple thoughts on that. One being that "trust" is reltive, or has a spectum. At one end of course of absence of trust, total absence of trust. At the other end is a person you feel no need to conduct oversight on. All the players are somewhere on this spectrum, but I submit none of them is perfectly trustworthy, not even Trump. Some are close to it. There is also a possibility of trust being used in an inverse way - I trust Hillary (or Obama) would do the wrong thing. I trust Mueller that way. Predictable.
The other thought is subject matter jurisdiction. Tust Sessions ... to do what?
I'm going to leave question that hanging for a reason.
Please go and look at the true nature of Sessions recusal, the actual section of law that it pertains to..
In short he is RECUSED from revealing ongoing investigations and what they are finding. This then prevented (so called) information about all of the heavy lifting that Huber has been doing with well over 400 investigators away from DC, and all of that is the core of the tens of thousands of indictments that are sealed and awaiting the time to open them and then the fun begins. You cannot break down a conspiracy of this size and scope from the top, you will never get there and a few knuckleheads may be fed to the lions as cannon fodder, but this is way bigger.
More than anyone could believe, and it will shake the foundations of this country and many others