Okay, now let's actually analyze this.
The sentence:
"the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."
I'm assuming that means November 18th of 2006, or about six months after this e-mail was written. Lam was actually notified of her firing December 7th of that year. I'm not seeing a lot of urgency here, which would certainly have been the case if this involved trying to interrupt a new case.
For some additional perspective, scroll down to the very next e-mail, dated May 31st. Note the complaint about Lam. Is the complaint about that investigation, or something else entirely?
Do you see what a thin thread Schumer and Feinstein are hanging this on?