Clinton did it as well, He had a $10,000 a month mortgage, and charged the secret service $10,000 rent on a gate house. Now, Biden approached the secret service about rent on the then vacant rental property, they agreed, he now collects rent from that. So plain and simple, conflict of interest. The argument some are making that the Secret service has rented adjoining properties to protect people in the past is different and not a valid argument, as that property was rented from someone else, not the person they are protecting. This is morally and ethically wrong, sorry, you can not justify it at all. The facts that Biden approached and made a deal is all public record. The fact that he collects money means that he recieves a private financial gain and makes it a clear cut conflict of interests. Yes it is his property he is entitled to make money off of it, however, the purpose of the property in question is a rental property by nature there to provide income. He approached the secret service after the latest tenant moved out. So it was a private business deal that he used to public office to broker and benefits financially from. No matter what side of the isle you are on, it is a conflict of interests in the least and possibly criminal.

The Bush incident is different from the information I can find on it, he did not charge them rent, if they decided they needed to modify some existing structures to fit their needs, and made the arrangements on their own, then it is not a conflict of interests. He did not receive a financial gain from the arrangement.

President paid for by the people? It costs in the millions to even run for presidency. And then you are forbidden to profit off the people.

I bet the secret service is happy they can stay in his cottage instead of living in a crappy apartment.