Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) sparked derisive laughter at a town hall with her attempt to explain a taxpayer-draining congressional meeting at President Donald Trump’s golf resort.
The GOP-controlled House held its annual policy retreat at Trump National Doral Golf Club, renewing criticism of Trump around the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Rep. Hinson — who won reelection by a 15-point margin in her district — held a town hall meeting in Elkader this week that devolved into jeers and heckling when she brought up Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and said she was “proud” to have voted for it.
Hinson also took the unusual step of commenting on a provision of the bill that doesn’t actually exist.
But the crowd erupted with laughter when Hinson was asked, by a constituent named Mary Jacobs, about the retreat and the Emoluments Clause, and tried to reassure them that it couldn’t possibly be a violation because :
REP. ASHLEY HINSON (R-IA) Thank you. Go ahead and say your name and where you’re from.
MARY JACOBS: Mary Jacobs, El Cater. I understand that Congressional work retreats are conducted by both parties. I understand you went seven days after inauguration to the Trump National Doral Golf Club for a retreat, work retreat.
Do you know how new retreats have been held by either party on property owned by the president or former president? And how does our taxpayer money, going to his golf resort, not go against the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution?
REP. ASHLEY HINSON (R-IA) I think the most important part of this is that my department has taken members off-site to have discussions that you can’t have in Washington, D.C. It’s hard to get everybody to show up at a meeting in D. C.
Let alone some of the meetings are held off-site. Specifically, that one was because of the security threats specific to President Trump.
I saw the glass that they had to haul in for the room that he had to stay in when he came to speak. It’s quite an ordeal to have a full Secret Service detail.
And when you look at the money that the Secret Service has already spent because they know that property, we have to look at… That cost as well because when they come into some of these properties to do their pre-checks and pre-scans and they’re on site usually several days ahead of time, it actually saves money for taxpayers if it’s at a propert as they already know.
So in that case, due to the threats on President Trump’s life, which they are very, very real, I think everybody in this audience knows, he’s had I think two that almost came to fruition in the last year before he was even the president again, and many of our adversaries do not want to see him be successful.
And so we need to make sure that, again, no matter who is the President, that they are kept safe by the Secret Service. And that, I believe, is the rationale behind that specific location.
But I think, again, finding a place where the…
MARY JACOBS: (INAUDIBLE) the Emoluments Clause–.
REP. ASHLEY HINSON (R-IA) And I’m happy to look into the specifics and follow you up, but I think that legally we would not have held… We would have not held an event in a place that violated the law. I can guarantee you that.
CROWD: (LAUGHTER AND GROANS).
Our importance in following the law, unlike the previous administration that chose not to enforce the laws we had on the books on the southern border.
Watch above via Iowa’s News Now.
