The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Ann Romney defended her husband’s refusal to release more than a single year of his tax returns this morning, telling ABC’s Robin Roberts that her husband Mitt has “given all you people need to know” about the Romney family finances.

The statement came after Ann attempted to defend Mitt by using the same logic as Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: that Romney gives money to the Mormon Church, so of course there’s nothing bad in his tax returns.

“He’s a very generous person. We give ten percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things?” Ann Romney asked Roberts. “No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary for four years.”

“Why not show that, then?” Roberts asked. Ann responded to that question by borrowing Mitt’s favorite defense: If he released the returns, the Obama campaign would scrutinize them (which is, of course,  the whole purpose of releasing financial records — transparency to the press, the opposition, and above all the public.)

“Because there are so many things that will be open again for more attack… and that’s really, that’s just the answer,” Romney replied to Roberts. “And we’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life.”

It’s worth pointing out that the American people still think that they need to know more. According a new USA Today poll,  54 percent believe that Mitt Romney should release additional tax returns.

Watch video of the interview here, courtesy of Talking Points Memo:

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Wandrea "Shaye" Moss

YouTube Screenshot

Just who deserves protection in America?

If you observe the folks this country chooses to protect and chooses to ignore, you may get an answer that doesn’t exactly line up with America’s ideals.

Keep reading... Show less
YouTube Screenshot

The First Amendment reflects a principled but shrewd attitude toward religion, which can be summarized: Government should keep its big fat nose out of matters of faith. The current Supreme Court, however, is not in full agreement with that proposition. It is in half agreement — and half is not enough.

This section of the Bill of Rights contains two commands. First, the government can't do anything "respecting an establishment of religion" — that is, sponsoring, subsidizing or providing special favors for religious institutions or individuals.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}