At the risk of communicating even though I have apparently made it to your blacklist, I will address your claim that Sessions was required under 28 CFR 45.2 to recuse himself. As noted by Andrew McCarthy (former fed prosecutor) and others, the memo that Sessions was given was incorrect as to the requirements of the situation, and Sessions was snookered by career DOJ folks into the recusal. I read the articles at the time, looked at the rules, and by jove! he was indeed snookered. He should have stayed at his post. Instead he deserted.
A flawed SC appointment does not make the recusal flawed. If (emphasis on the conditional) indeed there WAS a criminal investigation / prosecution involving the Trump campaign, Sessions is properly recused from it.
I would go a step further, in that if there was a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, Sessions should recuse from that as well. This because there is a possibility that the investigation would turn up a crime, and if Sessions was in charge, he'd "pull a Holder" and bury the crime.
Where I don't go, and what I blame on the DS/DOJ -- which is successfully blaming Sessions for following the regulations so as to avoid the appearance of conflict -- is sequestering Sessions from FBI / DOJ malfeasance and a few other cases that contain no allegation of wrong against the Trump campaign.
FWIW, Sessions is also properly recused from cases against Hillary - recused during confirmation hearing on account of he has prejudged to lock her up.
BTW, my blacklist isn't personal. I bear no animus. Just my contribution to keeping the peace, short of vanishing.