SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (132702)2/13/2001 5:33:32 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570942
 
I think drug use is far more serious than sexual harassment. Bush should be questioned under oath about his drug use.

I think drug use probably should be legal, but I'll admit that is not directly relevant here.

Clinton was sued and in the course of the lawsuit stuff comes up. If he had settled he probably would have had a much easier time. There does not appear to be enough evidence to prosecute Bush for drug use, and there might be a statute of limitations issue as well. I suppose someone could try to sue Bush but I can't think of any grounds. If he damaged some one's property while under the influence of drugs I would think that they would have all ready come forward or it would have all ready been quietly settled.

Tim



To: Scumbria who wrote (132702)2/13/2001 5:57:15 PM
From: hmaly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570942
 
Scumbria Re..I think drug use is far more serious than sexual harassment. Bush should be questioned under oath about his drug use. <<<<<<<

You could but who would watch. It looks like the Rich pardon fiasco is going to last another six months. And you know how we love to crucify Bill.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News