I think Bush and Ashcroft are working on it, but they will drag it out only when it's needed rather than look partisan. Most of the evidence has probably been shredded or "dead" by now. They'll leak a little here, a little there. Just enough to keep the dems in chains.
If all the info came right out, a few years ( heck, days!)from now people will forget. Might better use a slow drip, drip, drip until the dem party is considered the corruption party by all the people. Bush and Ashcroft will still look like the good guys without more Clinton fatigue, and it will keep the cost of Washington litigation down.
Leaking the info slowley will be more effective and cheaper for the taxpayer. And because most of the proof has been burried, an inditement probably wouldn't work anyway. Might better let it come out slowly. It's more powerful that way when litigation may not work.
I think you're on to something there. Bush came to Washington to be a uniter not a divider, etc. . .
Leaking the info slowley will be more effective and cheaper for the taxpayer. And because most of the proof has been burried, an inditement probably wouldn't work anyway. Might better let it come out slowly. It's more powerful that way when litigation may not work."
This is worth repeating. I hope you are correct that this strategy is in place. I was puzzled by the Bush response to the Clinton theft and vandalism when they left the WH. Choosing not to make a major issue of it was one thing, but actually denying it happened, at times, then backing off the denial really puzzled me. I wish I knew why that initial inconsistent response by the Bush WH took place.
Anyway, I hope your reading of this is the strategy now, because you make a persuasive case for it.