Recently, Mr. Lin Wood has latched on to our work here at Moonshine. Therein, I took the time to map-out the testimony he took from U.S. federal whistleblower Dr. Jonathan McGreevey and then followed that up with other articles; one calling for the presentation of rudimentary evidence in support of McGreevey’s claims. Today’s article examines an interview of Wood on the Stew Peters show and whereby Peters had also interviewed McGreevey but subsequently taken down the video due to significant attacks on McGreevey eroding at what Moonshine was working to preserve – his credibility as a witness.
Peters’ piece is incidentally now back up and here we are with this newer Wood interview in follow-up.
This interview is substantial in that it is responsive to our request for evidence on McGreevey’s claims at the same time it affords a lesson to be learned; and one that was learned.
Here are the diagrams featured in a recent article that map McGreevey’s testimony obtained by Wood assuming you’re unfamiliar with it.
Peters begins the segment confirming what happens behind the scenes with a lot of the interconnected folks working on the matters at hand, which is private communications. We have them constantly.
Therein, Peters outlines the type of attacks that he, Mr. Wood and Dr. Jonathan McGreevey, the U.S. federal whistleblower whose testimony to Mr. Wood I mapped out in detail so as provide utilitarian graphics that permit one to easily make and visualize connections and nexuses in this otherwise sordid, complex and inherently messy coup.
In confirmation of McGreevey’s credibility pertaining to his biographical details and the testimony he provided to him, Wood revisits how it centers on Chief Justice John Roberts, then Vice President Mike Pence and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Recall that McGreevey’s statement has him going to work for Rosenstein directly in 2008.
Importantly and relative to very specific comments I’ve made about the veracity of McGreevey’s statement and my call for Wood and McGreevey to put cards down on the table [provide evidence], Wood confirms that the purpose of obtaining the statement was to draw scrutiny to it on the part of both legacy media and law enforcement; and for the express purpose of tasking them with investigating, vetting and determining whether McGreevey’s statements are accurate.
Here’s what I said previously about McGreevey’s testimony in light of my past professional experience serving attorneys as an investigator. It now stands in contradiction regarding how Wood handled McGreevey in what I refer to as front end due diligence.
Subsequently, I wrote an additional article outlining how Larry Johnson of The Gateway Pundit had drawn McGreevey and Wood into conflict. Therein, I called for the presentation of rudimentary evidence to support McGreevey’s background claim.
Relative to this and without further comment, Mr. Wood now states, “If it’s not true then it’s an accusation unfounded; we move on.”
Wood goes on to elaborate on concerns we’ve held close to our vest and situated appropriately as being addressed during customary front-end due diligence and it’s that McGreevey may be an asset or operator working to “set-up” Wood by providing misinformation/disinformation.
In a quick sidebar relative to this concept, one way to kill a truthful message is to take that message and the evidence behind it and then blend it with misinformation and disinformation. Further, it is then delivered by someone who has a known and demonstrably seedy background. Enter Dr. Jonathan McGreevey BUT ONLY IF YOU BELIEVE GATEWAY PUNDIT.
Importantly and to the finer point, the shift then goes from attacking the mixed-bag of evidence, which contains the truth as obfuscated by misinformation and disinformation, to attacking the one who delivered it. When you proverbially kill this messenger, you also effectively kill the message and therein the truth dies, too. This is the plausible explanation for the McGreevey attacks as understood at Moonshine and further explained by Wood.
This is the exact scenario that we have discussed behind the scenes at Moonshine and most recently yesterday; and it’s an exact fit for what Wood is outlining here.
The remaining questions and the ones to which we all want the answers remain unanswered – is McGreevey [and his testimony] credible, did Wood conduct any front-end due diligence, does evidence exist to this end and when can we see it if it does?
To-date and as discussed, I continue to hang my hat on Mr. Wood’s peg out of respect for his position as the nation’s preeminent defamation attorney and by means of the human element fostered by “my guy” who is in regular contact with Wood concerning the broader landscape here.
Digressing and back to the interview, Wood outlines how an individual[s] perhaps operating for the Deep State, pushed back against McGreevey as is so often the case when one is situated squarely above a sensitive target.
Wood discusses how the potential asset stated that McGreevey would try to set him up; that he would leverage his testimony for profit; and that he would withhold details out of secrecy concerns; all of which never happened.
In typical and telling fashion, the subsequent attacks on Wood, Peters, McGreevey, et al. ramped up exponentially at this point.
Wood then speaks directly to what I outlined in my previous article and he characterized it as “someone” trying to define for him how to vet and verify McGreevey’s credibility by examining basic evidence McGreevey should be able to present – transcripts, grade cards, student IDs, diplomas, etc. Here’s how I put it in the previous article,
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.
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.”POLITICAL MOONSHINE [source]
Further and from the same source, I put it this way.
“I even had someone say you need to go out and check his degrees and see if he went to these various schools,” Wood states.
Well, that’s obviously exactly what I outlined and moreover, I know that Mr. Wood saw this piece because it was sent directly to him. Notably and despite being on a hot streak with Mr. Wood sipping on Moonshine, he did not re-post that article like the others.
I’ll also point out that I never have expectations for anyone to re-post Moonshine work and that includes Mr. Wood. Rather, I simply remain eternally grateful when they do.
If Mr. Wood is referencing Moonshine work by his statement – and I have no confirmation that he is – I still care to go on record by saying that it was not my intention to advise the nation’s foremost litigator of lies on how to parse-out lies. Knowing one’s place is critical. I know mine.
Rather my intention was working to preserve Wood’s and Dr. McGreevey’s credibility BEFORE IT REACHES A POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURNS and can’t be preserved due to the attacks for which there was never any response to quash them; at least until this responsive interview.
The easiest and most efficient way to do that – preserve credibility – would be to produce evidence of the nature I described. This is especially so since The Gateway Pundit and Larry Johnson are driving this damaging narrative.
The established rules of the game require that claims be evidenced. Herein, Moonshine is playing by the rules in pursuit of the TRUTH and for the express purpose of aiding and preserving McGreevey’s and Wood’s credibility and veracity. No more. No less.
In my past investigative work for attorneys, I did their bidding but I never advised them on how to formulate that bidding.
Again, know thy place. That has never held truer than it does here.
Mr. Wood continued to say, “So they want to define for me how to show that he’s credible.”
As for the Moonshine position on this, that’s simply not the case at all but rather and as stated, it’s a reasonable and obvious suggestion within the rules of the game to mitigate the attacks Wood references; and while preserving his own credibility and that of Dr. McGreevey.
Whether Mr. Wood’s comments are directly responsive to mine [my gut tells me they may be because I was informed that the article was sent directly to him] or not, obviously, a chord has been struck.
It matters not and for our purposes here, I’m simple pleased that Mr. Wood is addressing the McGreevey testimony accordingly. Ultimately, it should lend towards a better understanding and a greater sense of veracity.
To prove my point about working to preserve Wood’s credibility, I even went as far as to outline specifically what detractors would say about him respective to McGreevey. Consider this recent exchange including a reply from the extract above. Note the use of the word “grifter” because that’s the prediction I made that came to fruition as you’ll see and beginning with the harmless original post featuring a recommendation to take in a Garret Ziegler interview.
It doen’t take a prognosticating genius to know that without some provision of evidence supportive of McGreevey’s position that “grifter” would be applied to Mr. Wood. I called for the evidence to prevent exactly this; not to tell Mr. Wood how to do his job.
I sure hope my pursuit of the TRUTH, evidence of the TRUTH and the efforts to preserve Wood’s and McGreevey’s credibility weren’t conflated with attacks or intrusion on Mr. Wood’s professional duties.
Specifically to McGreevey’s credibility, Wood succinctly states, “I made the determination.”
Drawing a comparison to the Las Vegas mass shooter Stephen Paddock, whose records were wiped clean, Wood accurately describes how the Deep State does this as they did it to McGreevey. This is where the reporting from The Gateway Pundit encounters problems and falls short – they fail to acknowledge this reality.
Directly speaking to what I outlined above with regards to killing the message by killing the messenger, Wood outlines how Peters, himself and McGreevey have all been grossly attacked yet none of the attackers have taken issue with the message [testimony] or its contents. This is telling; very telling.
Wood advises that the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Secret Service, the Georgia and Arizona Bar Associations and anyone else asking for it have received McGreevey’s testimony. As expected, they’ve done nothing with it thus far.
Peters delves into the same without further drilling down on the front-end due diligence process by which Wood vetted and established the veracity and credibility for McGreevey by saying that he independently and outside of Wood spoke to “other sources” where trust is already in place and “the one thing they said is, ‘I deem him [McGreevey] to be credible.’”
In light of Moonshine’s ultimate objective – full disclosure – Peters reinforces a Wood position that perhaps Moonshine [I] needs to better learn and or embrace – that it’s NOT our job to determine whether McGreevey’s testimony is truthful but rather to determine whether or not he’s credible. Therein Peters references his “knee jerk reaction” [taking down the McGreevey video] and here, I’ll own mine [Moonshine’s] to the fullest.
Lesson learned Mr. Wood.
To the more significant issue, which is telling, Peters draws back down on why no one is investigating McGreevey’s claims.
In reply, Mr. Wood indicates that several other individuals joined him in concurring on McGreevey’ credibility; reflecting both on front-end due diligence as outlined and the notion of attacking the messenger over the message.
It’s a simple as saying, “When they start attacking the messenger, then people ought to pay attention to the message,” as Wood states.
Wood then turns the tables writ large by shifting the investigative onus to vetting McGreevey’s claims about Roberts and Pence.
Specific to Larry Johnson at The Gateway Pundit and including Brian Cates, who has been directly contacting Mr. Wood, Wood states that Johnson has been trying to move him off of McGreevey for some time.
Now it’s Moonshine’s turn. The Gateway Pundit has ignored my countless messages, emails and posts to TGP, Jim Hoft, et al. for about a year and a half. Why? My reporting has been accurate and light years ahead of what they have produced.
Perhaps Larry Johnson will read this call for him to pick-up his pen and defend himself against Mr. Wood’s accusations here; especially since Wood describes him as “too obsessed with it” and “coming in spurts.”
After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
No matter, the TRUTH should win-out here.
Notably, Wood cites Johnson’s known previous work for the CIA and whereby Johnson’s claims it to be of the past.
Speaking directly about Cates, Wood advises that he’s never spoken to Cates but that Cates had messaged him as described and “almost like they’re working together” to push Wood toward verifying McGreevey’s credibility.
Wood cites as suspect the unity and timing of Johnson and Cates coming together in this way.
Further and delving into a concept we monitor closely, Wood speaks of channels/people on Telegram [and perhaps elsewhere] that present as patriotic but now appear to be sowing division amongst the ranks. I wrote specifically about this concept in a recent article.
Wood then expands on the how the Deep State infiltrates movements and turns the movement on the truth-tellers with the mode of “attack the messenger,” as outlined. As we know, they’ve been doing this for “decades.”
Mr. Wood then cites the precise reason Moonshine has and will continue to hang its hat on his peg – his “life’s body of work” and the pro bono aspect of it relative to Mr. Trump and all of our current societal and political ills.
Peters and Wood then dovetail into a dialogue about the election theft and politicians in his former state of residence, Georgia; the good things that are happening by God’s grace despite efforts by evil to rule and control us all with evil; and comments about the identity and reliability of Q. It can be consumed independently.
As for our hat hanging on Wood’s peg and the background and testimony of Dr. Jonathan McGreevey, the hat’s still hanging and resolutely sole while the pink pigs flies.
What makes this flying pink pig different from all the others, though, is its capacity to deliver a lethal payload of the biggest bombs available and so it is the messenger who is attacked while the message goes without scrutiny.
Fly pink pig, fly. Bombs away, sir. Drop them all and let God sort it all out.
Here is the full interview.