Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. Many now believe and say Debra Medina blew the interview she had with Glenn Beck. They say she that she gave the wrong answer and should have just said, "No."
I disagree and am ready to present my argument to you through examination of part of the text. But first, let's think reasonably about context. When was the last time you heard someone running for political office give a simple "yes" or "no" in an interview?
No one does this because they are not there just to answer questions yes or no. They want listeners to get to know who they are, first and foremost, and you don't do that by answering jut yes or no. They also have a message to get out to more people at one time than they could meet campaigning for days, maybe weeks. And they only have few moments to do what they intend to do. Consequently, rarely do interviewees respond with simple a simple yes or no.
Has any one of you heretofore considered this common reality in speaking or thinking about the interview? Perhaps, but heretofore I have not heard it.
Next, before we analyze Debra's response, let's take a look at the actual content of Glenn's question and see what she is really responding to. Ask yourself, ladies and gentlemen, is this really a question that can be answered by a simple yes or no?
(I've put all interview text in blue to make it easy to follow with confusing it with my comments.)
Glenn opens by saying:
GLENN: I have when I said that I was going to have you on, you can't imagine the mail pro and con that I received. There was a theme that ran against you and that is you are a 9/11 Truther.
So what task is before Debra? Just to say yes or no? Hardly. Beck, in a short space, has implied a lot of incriminating stuff––cleaver. He has said he's gotten an unbelievable number of emails and communiques from people and a large number of them commonly accuse Debra of being a 9/11 truther.
This is not a yes or no situation. This demands a fuller response. Let's see what Debra says.
MEDINA: Well, there's lots of mud that people would like to throw at Debra Medina and make stick. The truth is I'm an everyday ordinary person. I am fighting for the things that our founders fought for, those very basic principles of a constitutional republic, and I'm going to champion people that hold their government accountable, hold me accountable but that's the first time I've heard that accusation. So that's an interesting one.
The sum of Debra's response is a not only a clear denial that she is a Truther, but that the accusation appears to her as both surprising and absurd on its face. In addition, she says she's never heard it before from anyone, and she kind of laughs at the close, further indicating her sense of absurdity and surprise.
There's also more here than meets the eye. There are things only a few others could have known that were necessary to know to fully appreciate this little exchange. They are as follows:
1. After the interview, as Beck continued his attacks on Debra for days on both radio and television, Dallas KILF talk show hosts finally had enough and J.D. Wells and Jeff Bolton, in the interest of fairness, stated categorically that
a) They both had received countless emails and letters about Debra for weeks and weeks, both pro and con.
b) They and their staffs had carefully read them (cause that's a big part of what they do.)
c) They had also talked to others in the same business outside of KLIF.
d) With all that neither Wells nor Bolton, nor anyone they knew had found or said they had found one single instance that friend or foe had mentioned that Debra had anything at all to do with 9/11 Truthers in any way... not one!
Yet, according to Beck accusations to that effect are not only in some emails he received about Debra, but a common theme. Now, there's some cognitive dissonance for you. Can both be right? It's hard to imagine.
So what do we have backing Beck's words up that a large number included such an accusation?
Nothing but his say so to date.
But just how good is Mr. Beck's word nowadays, since his avowed "reformation?" Is there any way we can find out or is there any evidence that will give us a clue he should be trusted?
Since Wells, Bolton and their staffs and others in the business here in Texas all agree, it is hard to suspect them. It's even harder since their records as broadcasters have both been characterized by even handedness and even charity. Reasonable judgment would have to cast questions about Mr. Beck's own truth telling.
But perhaps that is presumptuous. So, is there more we have to go on? I don't mean looking at years ago, but recently, since Beck's touted reformation and rebirth. After all, he's changed. Who could miss knowing it. He says so all the time. Millions hear about it almost daily, since Mr. Beck is clearly not one burdened with the normal undue sense of personal discretion and modesty––but I digress.
Yes, even with such evidentiary constraints, I do think I've found the requisite smoking gun. But when? Is just this past week recent enough? If so, I'll proceed with the remainder of my case, but first a little clarification is needed to avoid confusion in its exposition.
The following makes reference to three segments from three different broadcasts, all done within the span of one week.
1. Two separate segments of Debra's from the original interview, (seg a and seg b) 2. Debra's explanation of her initial response in the first interview later than same day. 3. Beck and partner Pat Gray giving an interview later the next week on a Houston station where they play Debra's explanation (2), call her a liar and as "proof" play an entirely different part of the original interview (seg. b) trying to make it appear as if it is the segment Debra is really talking about (seg. a)––when they clearly know it is not: it is clearly all a calculated ruse, well prepared and perhaps acted out before hand to discredit Debra. It could not have been done other than with malice aforethought, as you will see.
2. How good Beck's words are can be learned by simply watching and listening to him each day after the interview, but there is one special, momentous moment:
In a broadcast (3) Beck and sidekick Pat Gray did for a Houston radio station almost a week after the original Beck/Medina interview (1), they play a recorded statement of Debra's (2) commenting on what happened in the original interview. Debra says in her response to Beck's first question about 9/11 truth (seg a) she was surprised by the question and actually laughed in her response.
At that point Beck and Gray interrupt Debra's recorded statement, saying in sum "Stop, stop. There! Right there! See. Gray says in a self-righteous, indignant, angry tone that Debra did not laugh and Beck says they have the actual recording to prove it.
Beck and Gray then proceed to play an entirely different section of the interview (seg b) and not the opening answer Debra is clearly discussing (seg a).
In the section they play (seg b), which happened several exchanges after the initial 9/11 truther question, Debra is serious and there is no laughter at the end of her response, as in the question her statement was truly and clearly referencing (seg a).
At the end of the seg b statement Beck and Gray chortle triumphantly trumpeting like boorish school yard bullies rejoicing they are vindicated and have exposed Debra is a liar. They then segue into some clownish schtick mocking her, while intermittently cackling and reveling in their own presumed cleverness. It is as clearly contrived as it is embarrassingly unconvincing.
When I personally heard all this I was shocked. I had I heard the original interview the day it first aired and knew they were not playing the right section. Anyone who heard the interview knew it, but many who were listening in Houston had not heard it and that is what Beck and Gray were depending on.
It was perfectly clear Beck and Gray were knowingly falsifying the tape. It was all clearly contrived and premeditated. They could not have not known it was the wrong section. Clearly, the whole thing had all been planned out, prepared and calculated to purposely justify Beck by falsely accusing Debra of being a liar. Insult had been added to the injury Beck had already tried to inflict.
It must be said, however, that playing the actual selection referenced by Debra in her official statement (seg a) does reveal a liar––two in fact, but neither one is Debra Medina. One is Glenn Beck and the other is his smarmy sidekick, the irritating (and easily irritable) Pat Gray.
I shook my head unbelievingly and thought, "They must think we're stupid down here in Texas."
I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that events that follow for days after the original interview, reaching a crescendo in the Beck/Gray deliberate falsification carried out before thousands in Houston, are a sad revelation of what a little, insecure, egotistical, prideful man Beck is and how he'll apparently stoop to any level to try to defend himself rather than admit he lied and confess the real reasons for his absurd, disappointing, inexcusable behavior the entire past week.
The man has displayed beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that he cannot be trusted.
Each attempt he has made to cover up, justify or rationalize has done nothing more than lower him in the eyes of those, like myself, who trusted him. His machinations have served only to increase our sadness, heighten our anger and deepen our disappointment.
He has now dug a hole for himself that few Texans think he can dig himself out of. He'd best stay clear of Texas.
Rarely has some one discredited himself so thoroughly so quickly and so heedlessly in the eyes of so many. It seems he cannot stop. Watching him try to justify himself is like watching a train wreck in n0t-so-slow motion.
Beck and Tiger Woods are neck and neck in the race for most disappointing of 2010. Tiger is now making some efforts at formal confession, apology and repair, and that is truly heartening. But Beck has hit bottom and just keeps on digging––it seems he won't even look up. If he keeps it up he will catch Tiger and pass him by a country mile.
Some things appear as undeniable from this whole debacle: Debra Medina is a straight talker and she is clearly not a 9/11 Truther. But Beck has removed all doubt and shown himself to be a 2010 Liar. And that saddens and angers more and more of us each day who are learning about Beck's true colours.
So here you have my Argument as well as some of my own testimony to these events. But don't take my word only. The recordings themselves can be readily heard. Listen for yourself on youtube by entering "jeff bolton" in the search. Jeff's audios will pop up and you can easily find the referenced segments. Listen just to parts 1 and 2; that will suffice to confirm what I have discussed above. Once you've done that please pass your verdict to the foreman to your right when you have deliberated, and tell us; just who is the real liar?