And ... how do you know it isn't??
Easy. Because you can't point to ONE indication that an investigation of ANY of the serious crimes committed by the democRATS while Clinton was in power has or is occuring. NOT ONE. You should be able to, given the scope of the investigation that is needed. HUNDREDS of people need to be questioned and many of those will be unfriendly ... people that would lawyer up at the first whiff of an investigation. Their lawyers, being lawyers, would run to a liberal press and liberal congress and cry foul. But that hasn't happened, has it? And some of those who need to be interviewed would be people like Tripp ... i.e., on our side ... and you can't with a straight face tell us that at least one of those DOZENS of people wouldn't have let slip that they'd been questioned by now. But that hasn't happened, has it? And an honest investigation would require that THOUSANDS of documents be subpoenoed and hundreds of computers be searched. And there is no way such an huge investigation could be kept quiet for long. You can't name ONE example from the past where that happened ... certainly in a case as large as this would be. Sorry ... but claiming I don't "know" for a fact that such an investigation is taking place ... after more than a year in office for Bush ... is no different than the delay, delay, delay tactics of the democRATS. More and more, it looks like there is not a dimes bit of difference between democRATS and Republicans where upholding the law where political parties and politicians is concerned.
Soooo, if you will take a cue from how the President handled the after-election fiasco, you will see that he holds his cards close to his chest. The repubs never warned the dems of what they were doing or what they were going to do. They all kept their mouths shut. As it should be. Because the repubs kept their mouths shut, I believe we had the advantage over the dems, in that they did not know what we were doing - in fact they said "Bush is in hiding at the ranch". Of course, Bush wasn't in hiding, and quite the contrary, Bush had people hard at work trying to keep Al Gore from stealing the election. But the dems said he was in hiding because they didn't know what he was doing. Bush did that on purpose to keep them off guard.
Sooooo, the fact YOU don't have any information - doesn't mean a thing.