Uh oh: More audio emerges of Jon Gruber saying only state ObamaCare exchanges will be eligible for subsidies; Update: Gruber responds by ducking

posted at 2:01 pm on July 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

Oh dear. This is another speak-o, isn’t it?

Give credit to Morgen Richmond and John Sexton for digging it up. There’s a key difference between this audio and the audio Ed posted this morning, too:

Gruber’s moronic excuse to TNR, that he committed a “speak-o” while rambling through a Q&A, obviously doesn’t work for this one. Which makes me wonder: Did he knowingly lie to TNR or has he somehow convinced himself that he never believed that only state exchanges would be eligible for ObamaCare subsidies? The answer doesn’t matter insofar as the quotes are damaging either way to the left’s bogus “drafting error” theory for what happened in the parts of O-Care at issue in the Halbig case, but I’m amused by how he’s painted himself into a corner now. His choices are ‘fessing up to lying, probably by admitting that yes, okay, he did at one point believe that only state exchanges would be eligible but has since changed his mind, or basically saying, “Oh yeah, I forgot about that.” Mind you, this is the guy whom the media routinely credits as having all but drafted the ObamaCare statute.

In lieu of an exit question, I’m setting the over/under on the final total of damaging Gruber soundbites to emerge at four. Place your bets.

Update: This is a non-answer.

Gruber told The New Republic [after the first video clip emerged] that he had made a mistake.

“I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it,” Gruber told The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn. “But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.”

A second recording has surfaced showing Gruber making similar statements about subsidies not being available on federally run exchanges. Asked over email whether those remarks were a mistake, too, Gruber wrote back, “same answer.”

He wasn’t speaking off the cuff in the second clip, though. It obviously wasn’t a speak-o/typo. This is him basically saying “I don’t want to talk about it anymore.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Next of line of defense for MacGruber:

“Well, it’s possible that I may have thought that at the time (I really can’t remember) and if that is the case then I had misstated or misinterpreted the statute.

PackerBronco on July 25, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Obama said your health care costs would be going down, not your taxes shared responsibility fees.

Y’all need to learn to read bullshxt better. =)

tkc882 on July 25, 2014 at 4:18 PM

I should have been more descriptive. I don’t buy anything that man is selling!

maables on July 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM

What’s the difference between a Leftist and a liar?

John the Libertarian on July 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Good news, everdiso, we found someone who genuinely isn’t talking about Obamacare anymore.

The Schaef on July 25, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Allah, I’ll say six videos and a radio talk show appearance. Bonus points for another speak-o during a Q&A?
Door number three.

partsnlabor on July 25, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Perhaps Ned Pepper should take a look at this. He seems to conveniently forget that there is always a back story, always an agenda, and always, but always some kind of a payoff for O’s cronies.

FreeRock on July 25, 2014 at 4:51 PM

You people just don’t understand that what Gruber said is not what he really said and what you thought you heard is not really what he said but it is really what he meant which you didn’t really understand. And besides you are all racists and hate immigrants.

Appalacher on July 25, 2014 at 4:51 PM

What’s the difference between a Leftist and a liar?

John the Libertarian on July 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM

A liar has to work to steal your money and a “Leftist” uses the force of government to steal it from you while barely breaking a sweat?

HonestLib on July 25, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Has he ever been under fire? Tusla, maybe?

BobMbx on July 25, 2014 at 4:53 PM

more for-profit, free-market loving, largest insurance companies in the US are joining the failed dooomed exchanges!! OMG!!

Ned Pepper on July 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM

How is that a free market, if the government controls the conditions?

Do you think United, Aetna, Cigna CEOs are doing this for fun and so that people don’t pay them preimums?

Ned Pepper on July 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM

They’re doing it because the government is underwriting the process. So they get paid either way and there’s less reason not to do it.

The Schaef on July 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM

With so many speak-o brain farts I’m expecting it to come flying out of his ear as the lies come out of his mouth.

ajacksonian on July 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM

The other aspect that really makes this excuse asinine is that somehow both he (speaking “off the cuff”) and Congress (apparently writing “off the cuff”) made exactly the same mistake.

The only way to believe that is either abject stupidity or blatant partisanship.

mrveritas on July 25, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Maybe his brain was “scratched”, Like Lois Lerner’s hard drive…maybe?

right2bright on July 25, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Third time’s the charm … or three strikes you’re out. Either/or:

https://twitter.com/verumserum/status/492771241074245632

T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) July 25, 2014

Resist We Much on July 25, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Perhaps Ned Pepper should take a look at this if he thinks United Healthcare has just

come around

to realizing the value of being an insurer on the exchanges. There is always, always an agenda, and a payoff for every one of O’s cronies.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/20/gop-senators-wary-of-insurer-admin-ties-in-obamacare-implementation/

FreeRock on July 25, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Ok liberals…

Bush never lied about Iraq having WMD’s… it was a “speak-o” so he gets a pass now and you should feel bad for attacking him on it or expecting that to be true.

Deal? No?

Ok, then this “speak-o” nonsense doesn’t get to fly. This was the intent of the law when it was designed, when it was written, and when it was passed.

You want it changed, try to get a bill to change it that says what you want it to say NOW. You don’t get to change what it said THEN without a time machine.

And NO you can NOT borrow my time machine.

gekkobear on July 25, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Sorry – first time poster. Not sure how to respond to a specific post, but I obviously did it wrong.

FreeRock on July 25, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Uh oh, I guess he’s kicked out of the club now.

furytrader on July 25, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Sorry – first time poster. Not sure how to respond to a specific post, but I obviously did it wrong.

FreeRock on July 25, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Your technique is good, just work a little on accuracy.

To quote anothers post, copy and paste, then hightlight the whole thing, then click on the ‘quote button’. You did all those things, you just highlighted in error.

BobMbx on July 25, 2014 at 5:16 PM

“Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principle know as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand

In fact, as planning becomes more and more extensive, it becomes regularly necessary to qualify legal provisions increasingly by reference to what is “fair” or “reasonable”; this means that it becomes necessary to leave the decision of the concrete case more and more to the discretion of the judge or authority in question.”

– “The Road to Serfdom” – Hayek
Chapter 6: Planning and the Rule of Law

PackerBronco on July 25, 2014 at 5:19 PM

The Gruber is loose.

LetsBfrank on July 25, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Your technique is good, just work a little on accuracy.

To quote anothers post, copy and paste, then hightlight the whole thing, then click on the ‘quote button’. You did all those things, you just highlighted in error.

BobMbx on July 25, 2014 at 5:16 PM

OK – Hopefully I got it right this time!

FreeRock on July 25, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Asked over email whether those remarks were a mistake, too, Gruber wrote back, “same answer.”

Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no speak-o’s.

de rigueur on July 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM

When Speaker Pelosi invited Americans to read the bill to find out what was in it, did she intend to exclude the Supreme Court justices from her invitation?

catsmeow on July 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Thanks for the tip, BobMbx!

FreeRock on July 25, 2014 at 5:27 PM

Who care about NRLB.

Ned Pepper on July 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Freudian slip? You moonbats are a funny bunch.

tanked59 on July 25, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no speak-o’s.

de rigueur on July 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Hah! Awesome!

Key West Reader on July 25, 2014 at 5:32 PM

lol! Never mind what anyone in this administration has said, or what you may think you know about the ‘most transparent administration …evah’…

According to Eleanor Holmes Norton, non-voting Representative for DC, “You don’t have a right to know what’s going on in government.”

The reason for this declaration?

According to Holmes Norton… separation of powers.

You can’t make this stuff up. lol!

thatsafactjack on July 25, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Who care about NRLB.

Ned Pepper on July 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Hmmm.. A TYPO and a Speak-O!

/Idiot.

Key West Reader on July 25, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Who care about NRLB.

Ned Pepper on July 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Stick to copying and pasting your remarks; typing your own words is not your strong suit.

PackerBronco on July 25, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Sorry – first time poster. Not sure how to respond to a specific post, but I obviously did it wrong.

FreeRock on July 25, 2014 at 5:10 PM

No worries… Welcome to the threads… :)

Key West Reader on July 25, 2014 at 5:38 PM

I have been gone for 3 hours and Ned has failed to answer my questions, I guess he is ok to have Obama as his Lord, Savior and King wrapped up into one. Leftists have to worship a human since they are atheists. I bet Ned has never had to enroll in obama care and he gets his insurance through his job.

garydt on July 25, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Gruber’s got a bit of a problem – apparently he signed amicus briefs in support of the Administration’s interpretation (according to Jonathan Turley), so, what’s the law on that? How close is it to perjury?

Turn MD Red on July 25, 2014 at 4:16 PM

A knowingly false, sworn affidavit filed in a case can subject one to a perjury charge. But, pleadings (such as this amicus filing) are not “verified” routinely. It doesn’t mean he didn’t lie, only that he can’t go to jail for it. And, he’s not a party so it wouldn’t affect the underlying suit or parties to it.

[Note the IRS courts asking for specific statements to be filed "under oath" by the government. This would trigger perjury exposure. Otherwise, no. It's the oath that counts.]

But, if these public statements from one who was under contract to the drafters of the legislation (and thus, a form of “agent”) can be considered by courts adjudicating the meaning of the Act itself, I’ll take it. I’m more worried about Obama than I am about Gruber.

IndieDogg on July 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

“Dude! That was like two years ago!”
-Gruber

bettercallputin on July 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

What’s the difference between a Leftist and a liar?

John the Libertarian on July 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Leftist has a capital L…

HiJack on July 25, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Gruber is typical of this administration – lie, lie, lie, and if caught, hide.

sadatoni on July 25, 2014 at 6:58 PM

But, if these public statements from one who was under contract to the drafters of the legislation (and thus, a form of “agent”) can be considered by courts adjudicating the meaning of the Act itself, I’ll take it. I’m more worried about Obama than I am about Gruber.

IndieDogg on July 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

I think you may hot the nail on the head. If Gruber “consulted” with the dems as they claim, his statements can be considered under legislative intent. They were touting him as one of the key drafters of this legislation and he stated the intent of that legislation.

Ta111 on July 25, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Barack Obama is our President-O.

It’s like a typo but lasts 8 years.

jms on July 25, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Sorry if someone else mentioned this…

Wasn’t this clown in an SNL skit???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-nTHdlB28M

This guy is an MIT perfessur????

As our president is a former law school lecturer???

He was born on September 30, 1965. He completed his BS in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1987 and his PhD in economics from Harvard University in 1992 with thesis titled Changes in the Structure of Employer-Provided Health Insurance. He began his career as an assistant professor of economics at MIT. Currently,[clarification needed] he is a professor of economics at MIT. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

fred5678 on July 25, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Like all good liberal hypocrites he took big time money to sell snake oil then retreats when said snake doesnt fix the problem. Someone in congress should be on his butt to return the money.

jaywemm on July 25, 2014 at 8:08 PM

I read somewhere today, the courts can’t consider this when ruling on the case. The fact is that someone is going into the court and lying about this being an error, it wasn’t an error it was planned, this is proof it was planned, why can’t the courts hear this?

Why aren’t the Republicans on the attack on this. The Democratic Party played fast and loose with the countries health care system and the Republicans aren’t advertising it. Since I seldom watch any of the alphabet networks, I have no clue what their newscasts are covering but, if history is any judge, they’re not reporting this at all.

The President lied about it, the Democrats lied about it, and the President broke the law changing it. These, to me at least, are undeniable facts. This has all been done so Republicans can’t have any input into this legislation and Pravda and Izvestia are letting them get away with it.

bflat879 on July 25, 2014 at 10:35 PM

“Oh, I hope that’s not a hostage!”

Obamacare just got pushed out of the 40th floor of Nakatomi Plaza.

Haiku Guy on July 25, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Alright, fess up. Who’s posting as Ned?

rogerb on July 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Considering that the passage below was lifted directly from Vox –

Chief Justice John Roberts realized that in 2012 when he ruled the individual mandate constitutional. All evidence suggests he didn’t want to rule the mandate constitutional. But he thought it would harm the Court to do otherwise.

Ned Pepper on July 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926339/no-the-halbig-case-isnt-going-to-destroy-obamacare

it probably is Ned posting. He’s just trying to be snarky and clever, I think, and of course utterly fails at it.

Gator Country on July 25, 2014 at 11:11 PM

Allah already posted that he thinks that Gruber, well, just plain forgot. LOL!

”’
“Memory really is extraordinarily unreliable, and as we see here, it’s very easy to forget what you believed even a couple of years ago.”

shorebird on July 26, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Look, the law is obvious. The facts are obvious. The real question is political …. is that creep John Roberts going to betray us again? And why don’t conservative judges vote their politics the way that liberal judges do? That’s the real question. That’s where we should be putting pressure.

K. Hobbit on July 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM

Well, another liberal meme bites the dust.

The Times says “It’s absurd to argue that a Congress controlled by Democrats would have imposed a nationwide mandate to buy coverage while withholding subsidies from some states’ residents.”

But that’s exactly what the Democrats did. They wanted to force Republican-controlled states to build exchanges, so they built into the law clauses designed to politically punish Republicans who failed to do so. They expected the electorate to punish states which failed to establish exchanges; instead, nothing of the sort happened.

If the Democrats really wanted subsidies for all, they would not have mandated that purchases be performed through a state-run exchange. The bald political assumptions of the law are there even for the Times Editor to see.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-health-subsidies-ruling-20140723-story.html#panel=comments

unclesmrgol on July 26, 2014 at 2:07 AM

Remember the Medicaid expansion part of the law that was struck down (even by liberal justice Breyer)? I wonder how the subsidies could be seen to relate to the Medicaid expansion and how states which declined to expand the program would be cut off from additional funding. The argument that the Fed. gov’t surely wouldn’t have wanted to purposely exclude millions and millions of people from subsidized, affordable health insurance or punish whole States is clearly bogus as we already have precedent from other (struck down, unconstitutional) parts of the law.

What if SCOTUS blows up the entire subsidy issue altogether? Not only that citizens of States which refused to set up exchanges cannot receive subsidies but that the unequal distribution of subsidies as written in the law is unconstitutional?

Gymistokles on July 26, 2014 at 4:30 AM

The Times says “It’s absurd to argue that a Congress controlled by Democrats would have imposed a nationwide mandate to buy coverage while withholding subsidies from some states’ residents.”

Wait, is that the “nationwide mandate” that Obama delayed by fiat after threatening to veto a GOP bill that would have done the same thing? Following some 14 “exemptions” issued by HHS? That “nationwide mandate?” Obamacare is certainly replete with absurdities, but the plain and obvious meaning of “State,” as used in Sec. 1311(b) of Obamacare, isn’t among them.

Barnestormer on July 26, 2014 at 10:37 AM

The Supremes will pick up this case and Roberts will rule correctly this time. In fact — just a hunch — it will be lopsided, perhaps unanimous, and not a strictly partisan vote.

This time, the interpretive aspects are missing. What the law says and means is crystal clear and is unambiguous, and more, we now know with certainty that the clear and unambiguous law in question was what was intended by the authors of the bill.

Ruling that the language of the law only affords subsidies to Obamacare participants in state-run exchanges does not invalidate or set aside the law. It simply screws over the very enrollees the bill was intended to help. The law will be clarified and thusly upheld.

The Bringer on July 26, 2014 at 11:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3