Presidential Conflicts of Interest

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 02:05 PM)Benton Wrote: 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



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.'

Obama shutting down WH tours was his way of rebelling against the Sequester on Budget Funding, but that's not here or now.

I get what you are saying about the Budget, but because they are planning to renovate the WH, exceptions have to be made. So those rules might have to be suspended until they are done with the renovations and Trump can move in.

No it is a time honored tradition. Every POTUS has resided in the WH with the exception of George Washington (and he selected the sight). Truman stayed in the Blair House while renovations were being done, but moved it once they were done.

If the SS has their say, then Trump will be at Mar-a-Lago in Florida because it's much easier for them to secure than Trump Tower.