\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/31/biden-charging-secret-service-cottage-rental/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 That seems...odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 So, if I call the State Police and they use my driveway, I get to charge for parking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 So, if I call the State Police and they use my driveway, I get to charge for parking? No...but I'm betting if they maintain a 24/7 presence on your property, you can charge them rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 That seems...odd. Possibly unethical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 That seems...odd. Really? The most convenient place for the agents to sleep is a property he once rented out. They are paying the same rate as the last tenant. What's the big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Really? The most convenient place for the agents to sleep is a property he once rented out. They are paying the same rate as the last tenant. What's the big deal? They were protecting him before they moved there. Is there really a noticeable difference in the protection afforded that justifies this? Are the costs to the agency for his protection higher or lower at this location than they were at the previous location? Again, I might suggest that it might not be ethical behavior for a gov't official to now be a contractor to a gov't agency that is performing a mandatory service for that gov't official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Really? The most convenient place for the agents to sleep is a property he once rented out. They are paying the same rate as the last tenant. What's the big deal? I said "odd", not "wrong". Seems to me there'd be a conflict of interest somewhere. I'd like to know what's typical before I passed judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I said "odd", not "wrong". Seems to me there'd be a conflict of interest somewhere. I'd like to know what's typical before I passed judgment. Without caring to look into this one bit, I saw people noting in the comments that the secret service rents space from the Clintons. (Could just be right wing nuts.) Again, when weighing the conflict (paying rent that was already being paid by a tenant) vs. safety advantage (assuming on this that it's better to be in proximity to the VP than further away), it doesn't seem like a big deal. The rent was the same as he charged to the last tenant so it's not like he is making some sort of killing. I see the potential conflict, but it looks like a mole hill compared to a million other things...like siphoning off money to your former company, taking a director position to the company you awarded contracts to the day after your term ends, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 A quick google search seems to indicate it is a fairly standard practice. Yawn. Notably, the Clintons evidently turned down the money at least at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Hair plugs are expensive. He's still paying them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 A quick google search seems to indicate it is a fairly standard practice. Yawn. Notably, the Clintons evidently turned down the money at least at some point. Big deal? No. Maybe one day well get a politician that lives by the same standards they try to regulate for others. And monkeys might fly out of my butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 He needs them to protect against those TEA Party "terrorists". We aren't supposed to call terrorists terrorists, but biden calls the TEA Party Terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts