Yes, that's what I'd like her to do too ... on the following questions:
YES or NO? Did Klayman uncovered many serious CRIMINAL violations in Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, etc?
If yes, could/can Klayman do anything about CRIMINAL violations? YES or NO?
If no, then does Ashcroft has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting criminal matters of the sort uncovered? YES or NO?
Is yes, then is there any indication that Ashcroft has or is investigating? YES or NO?
If no, then are you critical of Ashcroft ... and Bush, his boss, for ignoring these serious crimes? YES or NO?
If no, then why not?
No, he did NOT. As you yourself have pointed out, that is NOT his jurisdiction; you can SAY they are criminal, but until somebody else looks at them and says they are IN A COURT OF LAW, they're not.
Not on cases that have been disposed of, or that they have looked at -- including Klayman's "evidence" -- and have decided there is just nothing there??? And just because Klayman SAYS he has it doesn't mean other REPUTABLE ATTORNEYS WHO SEE KLAYMAN'S DEPOSITION MAY THINK THEY ARE CRIMINAL) and the designated people at the DOJ have ruled they are NOT criminal cases to be prosecuted, for whatever reason, whether YOU agree with their opinions or not!
Much as it kills you and Klayman, he is NOT in charge of deciding what IS and what IS NOT criminal.