We know him as @Johnheretohelp, Ryan Dark White and by his real name, Dr. Jonathan McGreevey. He’s the individual behind the curious pink pig and he’s the U.S. federal whistleblower central to the group he calls the ‘Dirty Tricks Squad’ [DTS]. Dr. McGreevey claims to have the goods on the “Rod-centric” Rosenstein cohort that ran illegal operations out of the U.S. Department of Justice by leveraging compromised agents within the FBI, ATF, DEA and USSS. This cohort essentially functioned akin to a goon squad or group of heavies doing dirty work for the mafia. The difference, though, is that the DTS did such with guns, badges, powers of arrest and the full might of the federal apparatus behind it. Or so says McGreevey.

It’s now all been drawn into conflict and given the stakes, it’s reasonable to assume the position that the presentation of evidence supporting Dr. McGreevey’s claims would be an effective and logical next step. As an informed and vested observer, that’s the direction I’ll push for here.

DARK TO LIGHT OR LIGHT TO DARK?

Larry Johnson of The Gateway Pundit is now calling Dr. McGreevey and the veracity of his identity, credentials and statement[s] into question and in ways destructive to McGreevey and his claims ergo destructive to the account he presents, which is supportive of our broader base of work. Johnson’s questions regarding McGreevey are meritorious and worthy and we’ll present them momentarily.

It all begs the question of whether we’re moving in the direction of dark to light or light to dark?

This brings us to the crux of the matter – are Dr. McGreevey’s statements factual, reliable and evidenced?

Recall what I previously and briefly penned regarding the nature of McGreevey’s claims, “Dr. McGreevey’s assertions and claims plow straight ahead into ‘conspiracy theory’ as per the mainstream definition, but when you come to understand what has happened to him and his life, you’ll see that McGreevey not only had nothing to gain, but he lost everything including his health.”

Sensational and scintillating are insufficient to describe the tapestry of tales that McGreevey weaves and immediately his account should cause any reasonable reader to pause and consider his words carefully; very carefully. This is where my past professional experience bears down hard and I put it like this in my previous article.

Here are the worthy points of conflict pertaining to Dr. McGreevey as presented by Johnson in the form of questions and statements. All of the following are extracted from Johnson’s article but reformatted here and provided in the same sequence. The corresponding information following each point in brackets represents my professional opinion responsive to Johnson.

1. Did he ever work in any capacity for either Mike Pence or Judge John Roberts? [This is irrelevant. McGreevey wouldn’t have to had to have worked in any capacity for either man so long as he had accessed, viewed and perhaps possessed the relative evidence supporting the claims against them; especially if he were tasked to this work by Rosenstein and is perhaps still in possession of some evidence.]
2. Is he a friend of either man? [Irrelevant for the same reason as the previous point.]
3. Does he belong to any club or social organization frequented by either man? [Again, irrelevant if evidence is in hand.]
4. Does he know the person or persons Mike Pence allegedly is buggering? [The answer is yes, his first name is Jeremy and he’s now 20 (was 15 at the time) and they know his address/location. The other individual is described but requires further evidencing.]
5. Nothing has been proffered by Ryan White so far to answer these questions. [This is only partially accurate considering the above; however, the evidence does not exceed the oral word and should be presented in tangible form.]
6. Keep this date in mind as we compare the story White told Ty Clevenger in April 2018 with the tall tale he spun for Lin Wood’s lawyers in January 2021. White told Attorney Clevenger the following in April 2018:
   1. “I was a lay minister since 1983.” (age 15)
   2. “I joined the military and then the National Guard.”
   3. Attended a Catholic seminary as was ordained in 1996. (age 28)
   4. “I became a manager for other ministries.”
   5. “I started working as a private detective.” [Each of these points should have been vetted on the front end pertaining to McGreevey’s claimed background. If there are discrepancies between the Clevenger and Wood accounts, Wood should responsively evidence and clarify them immediately.]
7. He did not say one word about attending one college, much less four prestigious universities. [Was he asked those questions? Did he provide that information to Clevenger and Clevenger simply did not put it forward? These points need clarification and evidencing. Given the caliber of attorney that Mr. Wood is, I can’t imagine that he invited McGreevey to his private estate for the express purpose of obtaining all of his background information in a statement while NOT requiring McGreevey to bring tangible evidence to support it (diplomas, transcripts, etc. This is precisely the type of background work that I used to conduct for attorneys ON THE FRONT END and if it did not occur as it should have, that would represent careless, sloppy, insufficient and dangerous work uncharacteristic for someone of Lin Wood’s caliber.]
8. He did not say one word about obtaining multiple doctorates in the fields of Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics and Physics. [Was he asked those questions? Did Clevenger ask for documentation to evidence his background and did McGreevey provide it? What accounts for the discrepancies in it? Again, this deserves clarification and immediately.]
9. Ryan White’s embellishments go extra orbital when he sits down with the lawyers working for Lin Wood in January 2021. He tells a completely different story but omits key facts:
10. Ryan D. White.  It’s not my birth name.  It’s not the name I prefer. [McGreevey explains this in his statement obtained from Wood.]
11. Originally from Maryland. [Not in dispute.]
12. I hold graduate degrees — I held graduate degrees — I’ll explain that — in physics, mathematics, biology and chemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and Green College, Oxford. Graduate school would be University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland, University of Maryland’s physics program. [Again, front end vetting and validation should have occurred to review diplomas, transcripts, grade reports, student IDs or any other documentation evidencing McGreevey’s education. If these items were not requested, reviewed and vetted, see the previous statement above regarding sloppy work uncharacteristic of an attorney of Wood’s caliber.]
13. If Ryan White aka Jonathan McGreevy actually was awarded an advanced degree from the University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins University, Maryland University or Green Templeton College at Oxford University, there would be a record and a copy of his dissertation on file. [Already addressed.]
14. If Ryan Dark White was doing virology research then he should be able to say where he did it and when he did it.
15. In addition, where are his articles in medical journals detailing his research? [McGreevey speaks to this in his statement to Wood (see previous articles).]
16. And if he argues that he was doing “classified” research then there will be a record of his security clearance. [Potentially. There is also room for records to have been deleted or expunged for nefarious purposes given the persons and protocols behind security clearance processes (those who control information control the “truth” and can tailor it accordingly).]

They are all worthy points and they all deserve vetting and evidencing. Moreover, we are now squarely in the middle of allegations against McGreevey and Wood of lying and that carries tremendous weight with a clear understanding of defamation. More on that momentarily.

Ultimately, we’re here for the truth – not to cheer-lead – so I applaud Johnson’s position and tenacity in this case. Moreover, Johnson’s due diligence to vet McGreevey creates a new onus and ought to compel Wood to once again come forward to present any evidence received from McGreevey in support of Wood’s and McGreevey’s on-record positions.

PUT THE CARDS ON THE TABLE

So, if you’re thinking that the onus now shifts to Mr. Lin Wood and his team of attorneys to address concerns about McGreevey and the veracity behind his claims and assertions, I couldn’t agree more.

It’s one thing for an individual claiming to be an internal federal whistleblower to come forward and provide his information to the public. It’s an entirely different thing for the nation’s preeminent defamation attorney and his team of attorneys to come forward and present that information to the public as presumably vetted and reliable as it should be.

For the sake of clarity and to give fidelity to our discussion here, consider what defamation is respective to Mr. Wood and his position as a defamation attorney and arguably the best one in the country.

Consider who McGreevey called into question and the authority and powers they possess as I put it above and respective to those same people figuratively being apex predators. McGreevey and Wood are essentially tugging on Superman’s cape and doing so as mortal humans. That’s why this bears repeating,

For one, defamation attorneys like Mr. Wood litigate lies for a living but they don’t proffer them and especially not on the grandest of stages and in the most consequential matters. 

For another, this is especially so in light of the nature of the claims and assertions with which Mr. Wood has gone on the record. Mr. Wood has attacked apex predators with some of the worst imaginable allegations and if you understand “political reality,” you know this is career suicide outside of the absolute truth and even within it, it’s attempted suicide at best.

Political Moonshine

With a clear understanding of defamation, do you really believe that Mr. Wood would have moved forward with Dr. McGreevey by engaging in defamation against the U.S. Deputy Attorney General, who occupied the number two position at the Department of Justice? Or the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court? Or the Vice President of the United States? Or the former President of the United States who is now serving his de facto and unconstitutional third term in Barack Obama and by means of the Chinese proxy Joe Biden? Or the FBI, DEA, ATF and USSS agents coalescing in the DTS?

I do not – period. It’s that simple.

If McGreevey’s statement and information aren’t vetted and reliable, then why was it put forward by Mr. Wood in consideration of what I stated about defamation attorneys?

If McGreevey’s information isn’t vetted and reliable, that would make Wood a grifter; a snake oil salesman; an individual with an axe to grind; an individual with an ulterior agenda; and likely an individual with a principal. I’m here to say that I don’t believe any such characterization of Mr. Wood is in any way accurate or reflective of the truth. Therefore, Mr. Wood’s position on Dr. McGreevey fully informs our position on Dr. McGreevey.

In other words and as it relates to Dr. McGreevey, I’m entirely hanging my hat on Mr. Wood and his sterling record as a defamation attorney and I do that because and as I stated, I worked for attorneys for years and I understand how they operate because I functioned within their sphere and doing their bidding. Moreover and as previously written with regard to frond-end validation of clients, “Defamation attorneys (or any others worth their salt) that don’t do it this way aren’t defamation litigators for long and if they are, they’re likely hungry, cash poor and thinking about getting into teaching.”

This is where my personal situation bears down as previously written.

In discussion with “my guy,” the nature and veracity of McGreevey’s claims were directly considered and questioned by us. It is here where we give pause to consider the human element given that everything that plagues us today is a product of humans and not necessarily ones with the people’s best interests in mind.

The human element can’t be dismissed for if it got us into this situation it may be the only way to get us out [pro tip – it is the only way to get us out.] This means that a large segment of the U.S. population must have reached the end of its rope and is sufficiently motivated to assume risk and do something and about it. I’m long past that point and likely so are you. See the first forensic election audit in Maricopa County and with the initial findings being presented now as a good first step in this direction.

Digressing and returning back to my conversation with “my guy” relative to Mr. Wood and respective to the human element, when I questioned him about McGreevey’s statement[s] and the veracity of them, the reply was a simple one, “Lin will not lie, mislead or hide. He fears God and God alone,” he said.

In short, in my opinion and responsive to Johnson, it’s time for Dr. McGreevey and Mr. Wood to put cards on the table. It’s time to evidence the orated assertions and claims tangibly. It’s time to respond to Johnson’s questions and points of conflict. I say that for important reasons.

Without any such evidence being made available to the same public to which the story was made available orally and by means of the written transcripts, the story will begin to ring hollow and that simply can’t happen. There’s simply too much at stake.

With all of that said, we should also acknowledge that other factors may impact Mr. Wood’s and Dr. McGreevey’s timeline for presenting any such evidence; however, at a point, evidence will have to be presented.

WITHOUT EVIDENCE IT’S JUST SNAKE OIL

Is Dr. McGreevey selling snake oil? Did Mr. Wood wittingly or unwittingly permit himself to be duped by McGreevey? Is there evidence to support McGreevey’s claims? Was McGreevey vetted on the front end as he should have been and was that accompanying evidence reviewed and validated?

I hope so. Having done this work for a living I know that functioning outside of conventional norms here would be a fatal mistake on Mr. Wood’s part. So fatal, in fact, that I don’t believe there is any possible way Mr. Wood permitted such things to happen.

I worked in the sphere of attorneys doing this exact type of work for years. I know how they function because as my principals, they paid me to function in this exact capacity. The nature of the law is such that it sets rigid parameters within which attorneys are required to function otherwise they lose their license in disbarment. See the attempts to disbar Wood now.

The question becomes whether the attempted disbarment of Mr. Wood is politically motivated to veil the truth or whether they are legitimate efforts targeting him because Mr. Wood is engaging in unscrupulous practices? Those are rhetorical questions for me.

No matter and to some degree, it’s now time to present front end evidence. Many of Johnson’s questions and points of conflict can be addressed sufficiently by producing documentation that any college graduate posses – diplomas, transcripts, grade reports, student IDs, etc. I graduated from college in 1993 [BA Criminal Justice], 2000 [BS Education] and 2011 [Master’s in Education Administration] and could present that evidence on a moment’s notice as could any college graduate. Dr. McGreevey should be able to do the same and Mr. Wood should have already received such. One would think that Mr. Wood ought to be able to put some of that forward to get us started in the process and to satisfy Johnson’s inquiries.

Failure to do so could be another critical mistake since The Gateway Pundit carries much weight with Conservatives seeking reliable information outside of legacy media. Assuming McGreevey’s statements and evidence are reliable and vetted, the last thing needed at this point is the erosion of his credibility. I believe that must be preserved if not enhanced by supporting the assertions and claims with evidence.

There’s no better time than the present to put cards on the table.

In the mean time, for good reasons as outlined here and previously and respective to Dr. McGreevey, I will continue to hang my hat on Mr. Wood until I am compelled to do otherwise. I don’t believe that day will come. We’ll see.

That said, let’s see the evidence.

-End-