Press "Enter" to skip to content

The Gateway Pundit: Impotent Critic or Worse? Refuses to Name Wood While Defending Flynn With No Defense at All

05 Dec 21

Let’s start with this – The Gateway Pundit is the bookmark for my homepage so this particular criticism or any past criticisms of TGP should not be taken outside of that context. TGP offers timely aggregate reporting from a slate of sources it monitors and links to its content. Much of TGP’s reporting has delivered evidence in support of the work at Moonshine.

Last evening, Joe Hoft penned a piece entitled, ‘In Defense of General Michael Flynn‘ and in it, Hoft appeared to go after Mr. Lin Wood contextually but indirectly because the piece refused to name Wood. It served as the basis of his defense of Flynn which was no defense at all. It caused us to ask if TGP is functioning as an impotent critic or worse.

It’s worse.

How do I know Hoft was targeting Wood?

The context gives it away. I’ve written three in-depth articles on the Thanksgiving holiday explosion of fractured leadership and infighting that stands to detrimentally impact or perhaps derail any 2020 election remedy:

1- Fractured Leadership: Tumultuous Wood, Powell and Flynn Dynamic Causes Byrne and Obamagate to Resurface Leading to More Questions About Barr and Durham

2- Fractured Leadership: Part II – Wood, Flynn, Powell, Byrne and Trump Dynamic Unravels to the CCP’s Benefit Under the Cover of Another National Holiday

3- Fractured Leadership: Part III – The Full Slate of Claims by Wood Against Flynn, Powell and Byrne

These articles not only examine the matters in detail, but they extrapolate the important aspects to other interrelated components while evidencing those relationships.

It’s the third article that puts the final leg under our stool allowing us to stand tall on it in criticism of Hoft and TGP. It’s explained below.

It also causes a whole bunch of problems for Flynn and Hoft because Wood has the receipts; has posted them in full transparency; and has extended invitations for his detractors and critics to return to Tomotley for another visit; and for the purpose of publicly reconciling their differences while endeavoring to shine light on the full spectrum of truth.

Not surprisingly, no RSVPs have been received as of this article.

The problems for Hoft include that Wood is the nation’s preeminent defamation attorney; hence his obvious reluctance to directly state what is required to be stated by most measures; like naming the subject of ones accusations and the basis for ones story.

That is unless you’re trying to avoid walking head-on into an oncoming defamation suit.

If you ask me, that’s exactly why Hoft chickened out. His piece is fluff. It’s a bunch of rhetoric and unneeded Flynn praise as backdrop to nothing substantive. Obama excelled at such.

Hoft didn’t name Wood for fear of Wood turning back on him – ask WaPo, CNN and others about that.

It caused Hoft’s so-called defense to be no defense at all. Even worse, Hoft undid himself before he finished penning the title; much less the intro, body and conclusion.

Hoft’s piece goes on to read like cover for Flynn that was penned for low-IQ readers exercising no discernment.

Is TGP interested in the truth or is it interested in maintaining Flynn’s favorable status with a concerned public in the light of serious allegations by Wood?

Or is it that Hoft is interested in maintaining his own favorable status with Flynn?

It’s likely both.

Here’s a question for Hoft. From whom or what are you defending Flynn as per the title?

A defense is normally taken in response to a specific attack. Who is the attacker and why didn’t you name him, her or them?

WaPo, CNN and others can answer the last question.

How do I know I’m correct? Logical deduction; as always. That and the evidence in the three articles linked above.

Hoft opens in adoration of Flynn for a couple of paragraphs before getting to his pillow fight,

That is why I was disturbed by recent reports that General Flynn recited an unusual prayer on September 17, 2021, when he was a guest speaker at pastor Hank Kunneman’s Lord of Hosts Church in Nebraska. In my opinion, as a preacher, some Christians have leapt to illogical conclusions about this man. They are wrong. I know General Flynn is a devout Roman Catholic and a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.

Incredibly, some have criticized the retired Army officer and former National Security Advisor for his invocation, claiming he recited a prayer originating with The Church Universal and Triumphant, a 1980s cult, and insinuating he purposefully emulated them. This is cynical and far-fetched and based on what the general himself told me, false.

Wood has been the primary critic of Flynn on this matter and his Telegram feed is loaded with those criticisms; loaded.

Why didn’t he name Wood?


The General and I later had dinner together and I interviewed him for my Web site. He shared how his faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus grew through all the wickedness he endured. He said he always believed in keeping his faith private, to not “wear his faith his sleeve,” but recently, with the growing problems facing our nation, he felt compelled to speak more publicly about his faith and his belief that only through God can our Constitutional Republic be saved.

The internet being what it is, this baseless attack on General Flynn was actually followed by additional attacks, falsely claiming that this great American hero is a Satanist, a pedophile and an agent of the Israeli Government and that he worked for globalist George Soros. Needless to say, these are vile lies that I believe are being spread by those who fear that it is possible under God’s plan that General Flynn will play a pivotal role in the struggle for America’s survival and future.

Again, Wood’s statements and claims overlap these exact areas in direct relation to Flynn and comporting on the same timeline as Hoft’s “defense” of Flynn. This bears down below.

It all gives the appearance that Hoft is having his legal and journalistic cakes while eating them, too. Or so he is trying.

There is little to nothing else in Hoft’s so-called “defense” article aside from personal adoration for Flynn.

Hoft was never specific. Hoft never leveled any real criticisms of Flynn that require defending because Wood has already put those receipts on the table. Hoft smartly steered clear. It left little else about which to write.

That’s a stark contrast to our list of 89.

Here is what is most important in all of this.

Wood has accused Flynn on the face of the evidence and the fact sets that he has already presented.

Hoft defended Flynn on the merits of what he believes Flynn’s character to be.

That distinction is enormous.

If Hoft’s journalistic “defense” of Flynn played-out in court instead of in his cotton-candy puff piece, it would amount to a dismal failure and Flynn’s sure conviction because it’s no defense at all.

“He’s awesome” is not a viable defense for allegations of impropriety, crimes or worse.

We’ll close with the third leg to our stool; the one that allows us to stand tall and eviscerate Hoft as we just keenly did.

The third article in this sub-series contains 89 entries that are direct claims and statements made by Wood against Flynn. I cataloged them all in one place and keep it updated.

If Hoft wants to defend Flynn, then he should take the approach of defending him through the associated and established fact sets and evidence; not his perceived character of the man.

He can start by vetting Flynn against the 89 specific fact sets we’ve already established according to Mr. Wood.

He can continue by naming Mr. Wood as the attacker.

We’ll see and until then, Hoft’s “defense” of Flynn is nothing more than a cotton candy puff piece and the questions about Flynn and the others remain.



Leave a ReplyCancel reply