The government knew that Al Capone and Joseph Bonnano and that whole crew were gangsters, but they operated for years without prosecutors being able to touch them.
This is because under our system of jurisprudence you have to have sufficient evidence in order to successfully prosecute and obtain a conviction.
Capone finally went down--on a TAX EVASION charge. He never formally served time for the hundreds of murders and uncountable other felonies.
The Clintons have the best cover of any crime family in the history of the U.S.: Bill was Governor and then President, and Hillary the loyal First Lady and now Senator from New York. They have had the entire Democrat Party apparatus covering them for the last ten years; before that, the Arkansas Mafia. They have been able to keep things sufficiently covered up that even though the circumstantial evidence is all there, it is not enough for a serious attempt at a trial.
To us, the evidence is glaring, but WE don't have to go before a grand jury to get an indictment, and before a judge and jury to get a conviction. If they were tried and acquitted, it would be a huge P.R. coup, because all you'd hear from the Dems for the next fifty years is how the VRWC used the government to harrass and attempt to humiliate the Clintons but they came out smelling like a rose.
Only in FairyLand. The rich and powerful are above the law. Look at the cases right now - we've got a couple on trial because their dogs (not they themselves) killed a neighbor. Meanwhile, Condit, who obviously knew something about Chandra Levy is given a pass. Do you think you would be given a pass if a close associate of yours turns up missing and there is suspicion that you were involved and your only tactic was to stonewall?
Why do you "move-on"ers ALWAYS obsess on the Clinton's? Why do you ALWAYS suggest the prosecutions would start with the Clinton's themselves? Any prosecutor worth his salt would begin by prosecuting the lower level people who violated the law. There are DOZENS in the case of the crimes the Clinton's, Clinton administration and DNC committed. Maybe even HUNDREDS. And even without an honest investigation, we already have many of them dead to rights on a wide variety of crimes. One example is the Riady non-refund. Another is Filegate. A third may involve the death of Ron Brown.
IF Ashcroft were at all interested in cleaning up our government and political process he would start with them, then work his way up. He would convince some of the lower level staffers into turning state's evidence against the higher level officials in exchange for leniency. THAT is how they got many of the big mafia people. THAT is almost always how you get the big criminals. So why do you insist we start with a Clinton trial?
Furthermore, why do "move-on"ers fear to even investigate the actions of the Clinton administration and DNC the last 9 years. Most of what we really know about the SERIOUS illegalities (not the SEX but the election tampering, the secrecy violations, the murders) came not from Reno's DOJ, not from the mostly sham congressional investigations, and not from the obviously flawed efforts of Fiske, Ray and Starr, but from the efforts of a few investigative reporters and private organizations like Judicial Watch ... all of whom lacked the power that an HONEST DOJ could bring to bear. Imagine what crimes a REAL investigation (one where lying to an FBI agent is a crime) might uncover.
But no ... you "move-on"ers want us to focus only on Bill and Hill and ignore the fact that HUNDREDS of democRAT criminals are STILL infesting our government and their party. And as a result of Bush's and YOUR unwillingness to do the right thing ... as a result of YOUR playing politics with our system of laws, those democRATS have learned they can commit crimes (STEAL ELECTIONS) and get away with it. Want to bet we won't see even more criminality during the next election or once the democRATS return to the oval office (and they will eventually you know)? Want to bet?