Sadly, it seems entirely plausible:

The question remains, if this was such blatant fraud committed by the Clintons, why wasn’t either one of them indicted? Paul brought it to the attention of John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, and the U.S. Attorney’s office in 2001. It fell on deaf ears according to Paul. Why? Again, before you dismiss what Paul alleges, I refer you to the credibility battle. He maintains (are you ready for this) that in a deal brokered between Republican and Democrat leadership after the closest presidential election in history in 2000, Democrats would agree not to contest the election in return for George Bush giving the Clintons immunity. Seem far-fetched? Didn’t Bill Clinton make an immunity deal the day before Bush’s inauguration on January 20, 2001 in which he would not have to face any indictments for false statements about the Lewinski scandal? Does anyone truly believe that was the only thing he had to worry about? Why NOT try to have an immunity blanket thrown over both he and Hillary that would cover everything? The election results (or lack thereof) DID seem to provide a little leverage there. One must admit that the prospect of not having to face drawn out litigation over election results would have been appealing to Bush 43. In his mind, he could have been protecting the integrity of the office in two ways. America could get on with its business and a former president could remain untarnished (blue dress notwithstanding). Clinton was issuing pardons in his final hours with near reckless abandon and at breakneck speed. Almost as if he had no fear of accountability. In his February 18, 2001 column that appeared in the New York Times, Bill Clinton wrote, “The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president]..., and it is granted without limit". That sounds like someone who fears no accountability. Among those pardoned were his former Whitewater business partner, newspaper heiress Patty Hearst, and his brother Roger, on a drug conviction. Why else would the highest ranking government officials turn a blind eye to videotape evidence that points to fraud being committed by someone who is today the leading presidential candidate for the Democrat party and current Senator when it was made available to them?

It would also explain Sandy Berger's slap on the wrist. Nothing that happened in the nineties is going to surface, at least not in this administration. And as is noted in the piece, the press also continues to turn a blind eye.

If that's true, then clearly the Clinton's got the better of the deal, given that while the Clintons and the Democratic leadership didn't challenge the election past the November recounts, about 85-90% of Democrats never accepted the results, which is the "root cause" of much of our difficulty over the last 6 1/2 years.

I used to do a great deal of business in AR before Clinton ever got elected the first time. He was despised and FEARED in AR. It was felt by everyone I ever talked to who did any sizable amount of monetary business there, that the Clintons were ruthless and that you were better off poor and out of business than you were rich and in business with them.

I feel like they don't get prosecuted because they have maps to where many political and business corpses are buried.

If true this shows that the desire for power was stronger than the desire for justice. This would seem to be borne out by subsequent actions of the Bush White House.

How do minds like TJ get there? The Clintons might be Über criminals and it's Bush's fault.

Bill,
you've completely missed the point for the rest of Bush's reign. EVERYTHING is GWB's fault. Global warming, hunger, Darfur, the Pearl Harbor attack, the Spanish Inquisition, fall of the Roman Empire, asteroids killing the dinosaurs...all happened because of stupid mistakes by Bush or his advisers.