Leahy rips into every discrepancy in Gonzales's prior appearances. He hits on:

. Monica Goodling:

Is Ms. Goodling’s testimony accurate, and if so, how do you account for your previous, uncorrected testimony to this Committee?

. Paul McNulty:

Why has your description of who made the decisions, and who was most involved in the decision-making process, changed over time?

. Bradley Schlozman:

Were you aware of these issues when Mr. Schlozman was appointed interim United States Attorney in the Western District of Missouri? How did they affect your decision?

Then he goes after the testimony Gonzales made on National Security Letters, inviting him to "revise or correct (your) misleading testimony."

Next, he demands legal justifications for the warrantless electronic surveillance program; in the process, he invokes James Comey's testimony about the bedside visit to John Ashcroft.

Then, my personal favorite: He demands an explanation for a memo by Steven "The President Is Always Right" Bradbury, which justified the non-appearance of Harriet Miers. Leahy goes after this one by invoking the Vacancies Act. Mr. Bradbury essentially is acting in a capacity -- Assistant Attorney General -- in which he cannot serve, as the last Congress did not appoint him, and Bush has not pursued a recess appointment. Bradbury still works at Justice, but not apparently in a role that would encompass this memo. Interesting stuff.

For bonus points, Leahy goes into data mining, the Hometown Heroes Act, Gonzales's promises of more oversight; all designed to embarrass AGAG.

Last, though, he drops this nugget:

Apparently, the Department of Justice Inspector General suffers under a limitation that restricts his ability to investigation misconduct by you, the Deputy Attorney General, and other senior Department lawyers. Will you agree to the removal of this limitation...?

Imagine! The Justice IG can't investigate the AG. How convenient! Let's indeed have an explanation for that, Mr. Gonzales. I'm all ears.

I'd say Gonzales is properly set up for potential perjury, wouldn't you? Coming to a TV screen near you, the new reality show: "Who Wants to be Impeached?"