Recusal is generally done when the prosecutor has either a friendly or a hostile relationship with the potential defendant. "Strictly business" is the rule. The law aims to make people think none of the actions taken are personal.
DOJ conflict regulation 28 CFR 45.2 calls for prosecutor recusal from cases involving personal or political allies. Sessions cited this regulation by content in his recusal notice in March, and he cited it by number in his June 13 testimony before Senate Intelligence.
I don't have a numerical citation for recusal when the case involves a "foe." But Sessions said, in his January confirmation hearing, before Trump appointed him, that he would not a case against Hillary or the Clinton Foundation, because it could credibly be said he was biased against them.
A majority of posters on FR think the law should operate on a personal basis -- that when a prosecutor has it in for a defendant, or is best friends of the defendant, it is still okay for that prosecutor to take the case. Otherwise the prosecutor is weak.
No... I understand that they have to be non-biased etc... and I appreciate the clarity on the recusal piece. I’ve heard both sides-some say he had no reason to recuse, some others say he had to recuse... who knows at this point.it’s moot except for the fact that he’s not really pursuing draining the swamp too much and I think those are his marching orders from the President. That should be his focus.
Personally speaking, my boss doesn’t have to tell me what he wants me to do - I know him and I know what his expectations are and when his priorities shift mine have to shift in concert with him. I don’t think Trump’s priorities ever shifted away from draining the swamp. Hopefully things will work out. I would really not like to see Sessions go but I also would like to see my President be successful.