Except it usually isn't.
And if you post as many untruths as he has, you don't help your "side". You hurt it. Take a good long look at how many stories he has "broke" that he has had to retract.
A week or so ago, he identified the UVA rape accuser, Except, it wasn't her at all, and he identified a woman who wasn't involved.
Let's cover that again. He identified an innocent woman by photo as "Jackie and it was not her.
http://the405media.com/2014/12/09/charles-c-johnson-retracts-uvarollingstone-jackie-photo/
And he "broke" a lurid story about a New York Times reporter who posed for Playboy. Except it wasn't true. His source was a satirical school newspaper that was obviously and painfully fake. One way you can tell the paper was made-up and totally fake is that Elvis didn't show up to sing to students. Oh, and none of the professors have super psychic mind powers.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/06/daily_caller_cites_24_year_old_fake_princeton_newspaper_to_attack_the_nyt.html
And he paid that "witness" involved in the Thad Cochran election debacle. The guy made outrageous claims and by the time the whole thing was sorted out and the guy admitted he was lying, the chance to do anything about any actual fraud was totally gone.
http://www.businessinsider.com/charles-johnson-mississippi-senate-race-mcdaniel-cochran-2014-7
As you will also see from that article, he was discovered to be working for an anti-Cory Booker PAC and made up the "report" about Booker not living in Newark.
But, the funniest thing he's done BY FAR, IMO is tweeting about being willing to pay for a copy of NYT reporter David Carr's mugshot. David Carr himself publicly responded with his mugshot, which is found on the cover of his (Carr's) book. Which has been out for five years. And was on the est-seller's list.
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/544335912549625856
https://twitter.com/carr2n/status/544479890855448576
But yeah, chances are, if you want to hear it, it's true. Or truthy. Or maybe it's that other thing... that "not true" thing.
You have me confused with a liberal.
Or truthy.
A bit of the liberal lexicon. Maybe you have me confused with yourself.
Or maybe it's that other thing... that "not true" thing.
Don't know anything about this blog, but I do know that about 95% of so-called security hacks, leaks, and exposures have some [and usually, exclusively] insider involvement. I suspect that's true in the instant case, and think it's probably unlikely that North Korea is involved. Anonymous said it is not, and their track record is certainly better than this bloggers. The "hackers" themselves deny that they're Norks, FWIW.
Was Edward Snowden a low-level "network administrator" contractor who just happened to have extraordinary access? Or was he, as some co-workers described him "a genius among geniuses?" Did he really leak damaging information, or was it a controlled release of methods that was going to come out anyway? Or is he part of an NSA disinformation legend? Is the US energy grid really vulnerable? Or is that a fund-raising gimmick for counter-intel agencies? Or a honey trap?
With regard to what we are told about cybercrime, very little of it is true, and when it intersects intelligence agencies' agendas, none of it is true at all. None.