Let us assume, that after the 2000 election, that he had done what you suggest. Remember, the Senate was split evenly, until Jeffords jumped, and the House had a slim margin. The popular vote was tilted to Gore, and approval ratings for the President were just a tad over 50%.
Also, remember that all indictments would have to take place in Washington, D.C., which is totally full of Clinton fans.
IF you found evidence, do you think you could get an indictment in DC under those conditions? And if by some miracle you got an indictment, do you honestly think you could get a conviction? Keep in mind a lot of people hadn't made up their minds about President Bush, and the media was poised to pounce on anything he did which looked like an attack on Clinton (remember how the media kept trying to get him to make a statement on the WH vandalism).
Under these conditions, Clinton would either not have been indicted, or would have been indicted but not convicted. Meanwhile Clinton's popularity would have continued, the media would have talked about nothing but the trial, and nothing (like tax cuts) would have gone through Congress. And when September 11 came, as it was going to anyway, he would not have had the trust of the people, nor the full backing of Congress.
Sometimes you need to look past the immediate gratification to the long-term consequences. Clinton has been gradually marginalized, although I grant he is still a threat. However, a lot more people know about his poor record on terrorism than would have known under your scenario.
By the way, I haven't even factored in how many seats we would have lost in the House and Senate with your plan.
I am glad President Bush has held his fire in this situation. He is far wiser than many people credit.
Good argument, Miss Marple, and I could be pursuaded to join your view on this case. No doubt that the pressitudes and dims would have encircled their Machiavellian Prince to fight for him to the bitter end, and this could have been a disastrous beginning of GW's presidency, which is turning out to be pretty darned good on many counts.
I would suggest, however, that at the end of the day, the morally correct decision as to how to proceed would have to come down to the clarity of the facts in evidence. I would still argue that, if clear and convincing evidence, beyond any doubt, was found of eggregious acts by these grifters, then the time would be nigh to stand for what is right whatever the costs. If as you suggest a discrete investigation HAS been conducted (may well be so), I would trust GW's judgement in the matter and if he chose not to act due to murky evidence or typical white collor crime complexities, I could accept that outcome and the good work that GW has done so far instead of going down that road. Only history will know which course was best.