Sen. Chuck Schumer is known as a big advocate for Wall Street interests in his home state of New York.  It's worth reading this story chronicling his insatiable quest for Wall Street's campaign cash and his advocating for laws and regulations favorable to the industry -- many of which are the lax regulations faulted for the current financial crisis.  For instance:

On Tuesday Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that a March 2004 White House briefing for Members of Congress did not concern the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.

Tuesday afternoon and all day yesterday saw a rash of briefing attendees from the Senate and House step forward to contradict this assertion; they say the meeting did focus on the NSA program, and a damning May 2006 letter to Congress from John Negroponte, then the Director of National Intelligence, backs this up.

Gonzales is standing by his testimony, says a spokesman.  And this has made Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) angry enough to give Gonzales until late next week to correct the record. If he doesn't, Leahy will ask the Justice Department Inspector General to launch a perjury probe.

But Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is so angry that he would rather see the perjury investigation start right away. This video of Sen. Schumer's exchange with CNN this morning comes from TalkingPointsMemo.

UPDATE: Schumer, along with Judiciary Committee colleagues Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), have written a letter to the Solicitor General asking him to appoint a special prosecutor to immediately investigate whether or not Gonzales perjured himself.

UPDATE: Think Progress has video of the Senators' press conference about their letter to the Solicitor General.

I attended yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in hope of finally hearing a truthful explanation come out of the mouth of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Yeah, I really do know better.  What the American public heard instead was vague denial, sorry excuses, and shoddy memory (though Mr. Gonzales was careful to avoid the phrase "I do not recall").

On the other hand, we did hear some sharp rebukes from the Senators asking the questions.

From Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT): "I just don't trust you."

From ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA): "Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable" and "Is your department functioning?"

From Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "How can we trust your leadership?" and "You're not being straightforward with this committee...You're deceiving us."

From Russ Feingold (D-WI): "I believe your testimony is misleading at best."

Yesterday, several of our interns attended a hearing in the Senate about an important voting rights issue; I've asked them to share their observations here. - Kirstin

Yesterday the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a subcommittee hearing to examine S. 453, to prohibit deceptive practices in federal elections. The sponsor of 'Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007,' Senator Obama (D-IL), offered testimony in addition to Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Feingold (D-WI). These three proponents addressed the "shameful amount" of "despicable" deceptive acts that plague campaigns and elections, specifically targeting minorities, and the need for strong penalties to prevent this form of voter intimidation, fraud and deception. Currently, there is no statute on the books that makes it a crime to offer misinformation as a means to alter a voter's conduct and such trickery exists as a dirty yet effective political tactic.

Witnesses testified before the committee, and some of them gave first-hand accounts of voter intimidation and suppression. Maryland County Executive Jack Johnson and Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler both endorsed this legislation because "the health of our democratic system depends on our ability to ensure that all citizens entitled to vote may do so."

Just a quick update on where things stand on the lobby reform front.

On Wednesday and Thursday the Senate danced around the issue with the intent of actually passing the lobby reform bill with or without the many amendments that have been offered to make the bill qualify as actual reform (more on this later).

Long story short: Schumer offered Dubai amendment and now bill is in limbo in the Senate, even though that issue may have been resolved now. (The House is probably going to sit around for as along as possible with the hope that they won't have to do anything.)

As far as the amendments go, Reid offered a package of changes that got voted down, although they may come back in another form. Those include: restrictions of private sector job negotiations while working on relevant legislation, increased penalties for public corruption, and better travel and gift bans.

McCain has offered an amendment that would create an Office of Public Integrity to deal with the fact that the ethics committees in both the House and Senate have not convinced the public that Congress is capable of policing itself. This amendment has the support of Obama, Lieberman and Collins.

Senator Obama has introduced a good amendment as well that would expand the definition of lobbying to include coordination activities former members of Congress provide lobbying shops without being subject to lobby restrictions because they are not physically meeting with lawmakers.

The underlying bill that came out of the committees is pretty weak, with the exception of grassroots lobbying disclosure provisions meant to catch Astro Turf operations like that of Mike Scanlon.