You do realize, you're saying that Sessions lied when he recused, don't you?
“You do realize, you’re saying that Sessions lied when he recused, don’t you?”
https://lawfareblog.com/does-sessions-have-recuse-himself-russia-investigations
The Law of Recusal
Under 28 U.S.C. § 528, the Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice . . . from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. So the statute requires recusal where an actual or apparent conflict exists, but leaves it to the Attorney General to promulgate regulations with more detailed criteria for assessing such conflicts. And as with many conflict of interest provisions, the law makes clear that even an appearance of such a conflict is legally problematic.
The operative DOJ regulation is at 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a section titled Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship). Under the regulation, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with either any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution or any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
The regulation defines political relationship as a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof. So as a principal adviser to Donald Trumps campaign, Sessions seems to fall squarely into the provision, even if you ignore the very real possibility that Sessions himself might have an interest in the outcome.