Do we really need to do this again?
As I pointed out in this post, Lam was originally slated for replacement in an e-mail dated March of 2005.
Locating other e-mails dated later that also discuss her replacement would hardly be difficult. To be fair, I haven't yet seen this new e-mail they're talking about, and until I see the exact wording, I can't nail it down one way or the other.
Eventually this case will decay to the point where somebody will be indicted for an inconsistency of testimony, or using an inappropriate office computer for political e-mail.