Presidential Conflicts of Interest

[Benton]

(11-21-2016, 01:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That really doesn't matter.
This situation is an exception to the rule not the norm.

And honestly, unless you can find one, there is NO Law that dictates that a POTUS must live in the White House, it's just a time honored tradition.

Couple things.

The POTUS's security is mandated by Congress and carried out by the Secret Service. If the SS feels a location is unsafe, they will not take the POTUS there. He can fuss all he wants, the SS is working off Congressional mandate. And it has to stay within a budget determined by Congress. Remember a couple years ago when Obama said the SS canceled White House tours because of sequestration (in other words, they couldn't afford the security) but a former SS head said it was on the president because he refused to cancel travel plans that would have freed up SS agents to work the White House?

In case you didn't, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/13/ex-secret-service-agent-obama-absolutely-not-telling-the-truth-on-white-house-tours/

So, it's not a law and it's not a time honored tradition. It's national security and fiscal responsibility and unspecific laws.

Also, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/102

Quote:The President shall receive in full for his services during the term for which he shall have been elected compensation in the aggregate amount of $400,000 a year, to be paid monthly, and in addition an expense allowance of $50,000 to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties. Any unused amount of such expense allowance shall revert to the Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States Code. No amount of such expense allowance shall be included in the gross income of the President. He shall be entitled also to the use of the furniture and other effects belonging to the United States and kept in the Executive Residence at the White House.

That's pretty specific in laying out the reimbursement. It's not 'the President has free reign to spend what he wants upgrading personal property at taxpayer expense.'