No, I do not believe recusal demands 2nd SC. Not at all.
From the link that Q keeps posting for everyone to read:
“I think [Sessions] did the right thing here,” said Turley. “I think the president should listen to General Sessions on this one.”
Sessions “can always appoint a special counsel,” Turley explained, but that should not even be necessary because Huber “has the ability to prosecute cases.”
“Do these prosecutors have the same power to investigate and get to the bottom of things that a special counsel would have?” Varney asked.
“Actually, yes,” Turley answered. “I think people are missing what could be a brilliant move here by Sessions. What he did is he essentially combined the powers of the inspector general with the powers of a line prosecutor.”
“This prosecutor does have not just the experience and training to look for a criminal case; he has the ability to move a case of that kind” in court, Turley emphasized.
Not only that, but if Sessions believes crimes were committed, but Huber for some reason does not bring charges, “Sessions has reserved the right to go ahead and appoint a special counsel,” said Turley.
“That’s a powerful combination,” he observed
Paraphrasing Turley, Sessions could appoint a SC to prosecute, but he doesn't have to because Huber can prosecute.
In reply to Varney, Turley agrees that Huber and SC have the same power.
And if Huber's scope doesn't reach as far as Sessions wants, Sessions can ALSO appoint a SC for certain cases. it isn't one or the other.