I would call it mostly the opposite (and have given detailed critiques of why before on HN, citing where he is eliding facts or just literally spouting nonsense).

I used to subscribe, and read carefully, for years, so this is not a drive by sort of view ;)

He certainly appeals to a certain group of people, but I would not call it particularly accurate or correct. He will frequently leave out facts to make a point, even when the facts literally point in the opposite direction. The more I dug, the more obvious this becomes, but it only really takes comparing a single opinion or two to his take on them to become disillusioned with his view.

I gave up completely when his view of why the DOJ keeps losing literally became "the judiciary is corrupt"

You see - it can't be that the DOJ is wrong, or sucked, that he's wrong, or that his theories are wrong, or anything like that. No, you see, it's everyone else that's the reason.

I think he's drunk a little too much of his own koolaid.

There are better newsletters if you are looking for a more objective view. If you want subjective but good, that's harder, but Matt ain't it.