There was no logic involved in my assertion. My remark, the one you referred to above your questions, is based on the contents of the January 10, 2017 confirmation hearing of Sessions, for AG. [The basis for my observation starts at the bottom of p21 of that transcript]
...in his confirmation hearings, he told Grassley that he would recuse from investigating Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, because his public statements suggest he is biased against them.
Picking a nit, your question is better why Sessions didn't refuse the nomination, rather than why didn't he resign. Given the order is "nominate, hearings, confirmation, appointment," technically he can't resign at the hearing stage.
-- I know you don't want a fight, and neither do I. --
A reasoned debate can be beneficial. IOW, sometimes a fight is a good thing. What I said was "I don't see any benefit in expressing my point of view on those questions, here." meaning on this particular thread, and versus you.
Having read a significant number of your posts, I believe your mind is made up on the point - which is why I see the questions as posed in bad faith. The outcome of engagement would have been the same old. I see no benefit in repeating the same counter argument in every pro/con Sessions thread. Not that you are repetitive, just that the argument is.
Then why voice your opinion ar all on these threads?
If you want to comment, but not engage, post a disclaimer of some sort.