Jonathan Gruber is a Liar. Was He a Liar Under Oath?

Jonathan Gruber is a liar. The question now is whether Jonathan Gruber was a liar while under oath.
In a sworn hearing before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday, Gruber, widely cited in the press over the last few years as an architect of Obamacare, insisted that he did not write any of the health care law himself. "I didn't draft the legislation," he said, later reiterating the claim: "I did not write any part of the Affordable Care Act."
Asked by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy.) why he claimed in 2012 to have written part of the law, he said that it was "an effort to seem more important than I was," and that he "was speaking glibly."
He seems to have spoken "glibly" on multiple occasions.
As The Hill notes, in a late 2010 lecture to students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Gruber is a faculty member, he talked about the health law and described his role in its creation, saying, "Full disclaimer: I'm going to describe it objectively, but I helped write it."
In another 2010 video, captured by C-SPAN and posted at Townhall, Gruber also noted his bias in favor of the law while claiming to have helped write it. "Once again, unabashed, I helped write the federal [health care] bill as well," he said. That remark was made the same month that Obamacare was signed into law.
Two years later, Gruber hadn't changed his story. In a now-infamous 2012 lecture on the law's health exchanges at Noblis, Gruber not only said that states that don't set up exchanges don't have access to tax subsidies, he also referred to the "the one bit of the bill I actually wrote."
The issue isn't whether those statements were glib. It's whether they were true. (Notably, when asked by Rep. Scott Desjarlais (R-Tenn.) whether other embarassing videotaped statements were lies or not, Gruber would only say that his remarks were "glib and thoughtless and really inexcusable.")
There is no way to reconcile his multiple past statements with the statements he made this week while under oath. Either Gruber spent two years lying about his role in writing the law, or he was lying this week in his sworn congressional testimony.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Grubergate - the gift that keeps on giving.
Suck it all you 'gate suffix haters. I don't like it either, but it's what history has given us.
Given the scandals behind Watergate and water board, maybe the prefix "water-" should be the idiom.
Hence, the Watergruber debacle.
I call 'quibbling'.
"I didn't write it, I typed it".
"I came up with the specific concepts, but a staffer actually wrote it."
"I did not have SEX with that woman..."
Quibble is a good word, and does not get used enough.
So is "glibble", but I can see why nobody uses the website.
Bingo.
We are going to have to parse what "write" means, just as we are going to have to parse what "sex" meant.
It depends on what the meaning of the word "sex" sex.
"sex" sex?
Is that like "is" is?
ISIS???!!!!!
BOBARIAN IS A TERRORIST! DRONE HIM!!
I prefer "said" as a generic for all types of speech, and it can be then further qualified as to medium.
I love how they're all "getting to the bottom" of this thing that they were all involved with to begin with. THEY WERE FUCKING THERE, WORKING WITH HIM. They know what he did and didn't do.
It's like me holding hearings on that one time my friend and I were complicit in not cleaning up my dog's shit.
How dare you mock the dignity and process of Congress? [rising intonation] How dare you?
Just stay within appropriate dare protocols and etiquette.
PHAKE SKANDULL PEANUTZ!!!!
Damn...you're good at that! For a second I actually pictured an overweight neck beard furiously typing from his moms basement!
Eerie....!
I should have thrown in something about Christfags, goldbugs and such to really round it out.
Nahhh! Sometimes less is more! Don't spoil the moment for me LTC!
He's retired now, he probably has a neck beard and put on 15 lbs, just like I did.
'Mom's basement' can just be a state of mind.
Only retired from the Army...no neckbeard, and the only weight I have gained is from Uncle Warty's Squat and Deadlift to Mightiness and Great Justice! Program.
Well I've retired from the military and looked like fat Grizzly Adams for a few months. Slimmed back up a little since and took to trimming the neck.
(Note I dodged the "Mom's Basement/state of mind" point, despite being a homeowner)
When mama's happy, the basement's happy...
...or something...
Also, a "nothgingburger" - courtesty of John Harwood, CNBC's resident Democratic party stenographer/apologist.
I suggest that we equip all legislators, legislative aides, and consultants with body cameras, so that we can later determine who committed what legislative crimes. If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. It's just transparency.
Careful what you wish for... Anthony Weiner, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, just about everyone in Congress. Do we really trust that they know how to turn the camera off?
Schumer's camera....resting on his moobs... *shudder*
There are those who say that watching footage of Nancy Pelosi pulling her panties down to tinkle is too high a price to pay for transparency in our political process. I say that's debatable.
It's Pelosi'a panties all the way down!
*s*
I think that was the plot (or part of the plot) of "The Circle" (2013)
Either Gruber spent two years lying about his role in writing the law, or he was lying this week in his sworn congressional testimony.
Jeebus, for a bunch of lawyers, our Congress is notably incompetent in questioning people.
A competent lawyer would have asked him:
"So, when you said on [identify taped statement] that you helped write the law, were you lying then, or are you lying now?"
GRUBER: "My remarks were glib and thoughtless and really inexcusable."
"On that we agree. What I am asking, though, is whether you were lying then, or are you lying now?"
Judge Judy would have never let that go.
You know, occasionally watching Judge Judy did not prepare me for court. I feel like I was robbed of all the time I spent doing "research."
I would have simply said "I did not ask about glibness, thoughtlessness or excusability, I asked about truth. Were you telling the truth?"
"You sound pretty glib, thoughtless and inexcusable right now, so..?
I know I'm extremely cynical. But, I think they don't want to press too hard because one day, it might just be them in the hot seat.
Some of those guys pressed pretty hard. Just not hard enough.
I said this earlier, but I'll repeat it again here.
They need to stop the tag teaming and just designate one guy to be the inquisitor. Every time they tag out/in the let Gruber get some breathing room.
Go full Perry Mason on his ass and have one guy keep badgering him for an hour straight.
Yep.
Another thing I'd like to see (more aimed here at Tavenner): "A laptop and a phone are on the table in front of you. Please provide the numbers I have requested. Well? The Committee is waiting!"
Yep again. And have a technical assistant at hand in case Tavenner suddenly forgets how to work a computer.
I like, Pope.
Even better: Get a pipe-hitting prosecutor or defense attorney to ask all the questions. You know, a real pro.
I think the "I wrote the law" vids came out a day or two after his testimony. At least one of them did.
I wrote the law ... and the law won
I love that song!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsS0cvTxU-8
Does Tulpa know about this?
When the stars are right and Chthulu awakens, all of humanity will be united in gibbertarianism.
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!
Barry or Andy gibbertarianism?
It's fun to see this guy squirm a bit, but at times like this I really wish Ron Paul was there to give him a lecture like he was 12. Those were some good times.
I am surprised that Obama hasn't droned this guy yet to shut him up.
Or given him the "Vince Foster".
Is that like a Lincoln Mask?
Suicide by gorilla mask would be an interesting sight.
Rule 34 cannot be stopped.
he lacks sufficient melanin for droning.
He was ordered to self-drone.
Before we hold our breath until Gurber gets prosecuted for lying under oath, let's wait and see whether Lois Lerner gets arrested for contempt of Congress.
That contempt has been sitting out there for, what, five months already? Don't they know where she lives?
Any news on the retrieved "missing" emails yet?
I believe Eric Holder has been in contempt of Congress for a couple of years now.
That particular part of the judicial system is like some sort of fourth dimension where the laws of physics are written in terms of "appeals" and "stays" and "delays" and "pardons" and "exemptions" and nothing real happens.
This whole concept of "truth" is a bourgeois fetish that is used to perpetuate illegitimate hierarchies. Professor Gruber's statements served to bring health care to millions of previously underserved, marginalized, and exploited people, and accusing him of perjury is a Teathuglican con game aimed at distracting the attention of the Affordable Care Act's beneficiaries from how much better off they are than they were in the days before they had a president with their best interests at heart.
*golf clap*
Compared to Gruber, used car salemsen are paragaons of veracity.
He is lying this week. Basically, he has no choice from his point of view- to do otherwise would strengthen the case for the plaintiffs in the case SCOTUS just agreed to decide. I really can't wait to see the details of the contracts he had with the federal government- they may well be tell you explicitly what his duties were.
Good point about the contracts.