Report: Obama Films Campaign Ad In White House, Possibly Violating FEC Laws?

Is the Map Room a discrete part of the private residence?

The discrete resident and are NO other official functions engage in in the room?

And the official residence is on the second floor, the Map Room is on the first floor with other official offices.

Ground Floor

Originally intended as a service area for cooking, laundry and heating, the Ground Floor was rebuilt during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt in 1902, and again between 1948–1952 during the Truman reconstruction. Today this floor houses several official rooms including the Diplomatic Reception Room, Library, China Room, Map Room, and Vermeil Room.

Second Floor

The Second Floor contains the private living apartments of the president and first family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Residence

Use for OFFICIAL Government business
http://whitehousemuseum.org/floor0/map-room.htm

 

If you're neutral on Obama, that means you haven't been paying attention. Uninformed voting is not a good idea.

 

I'd be interested to hear what the FEC decides on the subject.

 

No, it's just part of the residence.

No, you keep adding words like "discrete" and "official" when they simply don't apply in this context. The Map Room is in the residence part of the WH, the links you provided even say that. In addition the second floor which you claim is strictly private is not.

You left off the second sentence in that article about the Second Floor...why?

"The Second Floor contains the private living apartments of the president and first family. Some of these rooms are used for official entertaining, but most are reserved for private use."

We agree that the Map Room is on the First Floor. We agree that the Map Room is used for both private and official functions. We disagree on whether the Map Room is disqualified from being used for campaign purposes. You claim it isn't to be used for such purposes, and the persons responsible for upholding the law disagree with you. So do I.

 

Nope it is for offical functions and not a part of the discrete residence which is where a President could film a solicitation.

They are the salient measures. If any official function is held in that room then it cannot be used to solicit campaign funds. It must be part of the discrete, do you know what that word means, part of the residency as I have shown.

The private residence is on the second floor, as I have shown the Map Room is one of the official offices and cannot be used for campaign purposes.

And the ones used for official purposes cannot be use to raise campaign funds. The Map Room is on the first floor which is official offices.

Then he violated the law.

According to federal law (Title 18, subsection 607 U.S.C.), “It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.”

 

Holder and the FEC will give him cover and try to ignore it.

 

Why would the FEC do that?

 

Yet no one in a position to file criminal charges has done so. The only persons who have even made the claim that a crime has been committed are those with a political axe to grind. Believe what you wish. I'll believe it's a criminal matter when criminal charges are filed.

 

Yes and that is one of the points, who controls them?

The fact remains it was filmed in a room where official business is conducted which is in violation of the law.

The question is why hasn't the FEC or the DOJ acted.

 

Why haven't half the churches in the US had their tax exempt status revoked for dabbling in politics? It's touchy.

 

This isn't touchy at all, it is a direct violation of election law.

 

I believe the AG is in charge of the DoJ. The FEC is an independent body.

Perhaps they disagree on your interpretation of the law.

 

So why don't you think criminal charges have been filed if it's a "direct violation" of the law?

 

Because there hasn't been an investigation yet.............DUH. And it is up to Obama's FEC and DOJ to decide to do so.............DUH.

Does that mitigate the fact it is a direct violation of federal law to use an official federal office to solicit money.............no.

 

Both reporting to the Executive.

Based on what? The Map Room is an official office in which official government business is conducted. What is the disagreement?

Yes why aren't they filing charges against someone?

 

Incorrect. As I said, the FEC is an independent body. By law the FEC can't have more than three members out of six from any one political party. These members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and hold six-year terms of office. Two seats are vacated every two years. Currently it's made up of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans, only two of which were appointed by Obama.

Oh, and the FEC doesn't report to the President. At all.

So again, why would the FEC not officially act on this "obvious" violation of the law?

My guess is that they don't agree on the status of the Map Room.

Because they don't feel the law has been violated.

 

If you think the FEC is "Obama's" you probably say "duh" a lot.

 

Yep appointed by Obama and Democrats and who prosecutes their criminal charges, the President.

Through the DOJ they do if they want to bring criminal charges.

How do you know they won't?

The status of the Map Room is quite clear, it is used to conduct official business and is on the first floor not the second floor private residence.

And the basis of that feeling is what? The Map Room is used to conduct official government business.

 

Prove that they will not investigate then.

 

Can you state this in a way that's understandable?

I don't. I only know they haven't yet, and there's no news reports indicating they're investigating.

Yes, you've repeated this many times.

Perhaps they're more familiar with the law and how it's been applied in the past.

 

Prove that they will.

(see it doesn't make any more sense when I say it)

 

All roads lead to Obama.

So why do you keep asking if charges have been filed?

So you get it finally?

What does the past have to do with the fact that soliciting funds in an official office violates the law?

 

Your whole argument hinges on the premise you don't know if they are investigating or not, that's not my argument.

 

No, my argument is that if an "obvious" crime had been committed we'd see some news about an investigation, or some news about criminal charges being filed. None of that is to be found if you search various news sources. Does that "prove" a crime hasn't been committed? Of course not, but it is "evidence" that a crime has not been committed.

What "evidence" do you have that goes beyond your opinion?

 

I see. So no matter what happens in this country it's Obama's fault? If the Supreme Court made a ruling that you disagreed with, would that be Obama's fault?

I got it the first several times you posted it. Repetition won't make it a better argument.

It's very relevant to what may or may not be considered an "official office".