They pulled something similar when "fact checking whether or not Trump called the coronavirus a hoax.
U.S. President Donald Trump referred to the new coronavirus as a "hoax." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
Rating: Mixture
What's True
During a Feb. 28, 2020, campaign rally in South Carolina, President Donald Trump likened the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the new coronavirus outbreak to their efforts to impeach him, saying "this is their new hoax." During the speech he also seemed to downplay the severity of the outbreak, comparing it to the common flu.
What's False
Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.
If the CDC estimate that for every diagnosed case there are 10 infections is close, then the US as a whole should be right at that 20% infection mark. It will be interesting to see if the daily number of reported cases drops off a couple of weeks from now.
What problem does term limits solve though? People tell me it eliminates corruption as if new people can't be corrupt. They say we need new ideas but young, fresh people doesn't automatically mean new ideas. AOC is fresh and faced but she has the same old failed socialist/communist ideas that have been around forever.
This is just more proof of what political hack she was. No one ever said that Obama stopped being president in his last years. He exercised his constitutional power to nominate Garland. The Senate exercised its constitutional power to not vote him out of committee.
We'll see. We can lose and probably already have lost Romney and Murkowski. You never know what Collins is going to do, but we can lose all 3 and Pence can cast the deciding vote. Whatever fake controversy or scandal that the dems come up with for whoever Trump nominates should not be given any time by McConnell. Just have the votes.
Ben Shapiro has some interesting points about the movie that are worth a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asxBUrx-Wfg
In the metadata, they're looking at how quickly files were added to the archive file, and from the file sizes and times, they're determining a data transfer rate. This would only ever give an indication of network speed if the archive file was created on one side of a network connection and then files transferred from the other. That makes no sense. If you were going to grab a bunch of files off a remote system, you'd create an archive file locally, add the files to it, and then transfer the archive over the wire. The metadata in that archive file would always show files being added at local disk speeds or possibly local network speeds.
There are no "transfer speed" values they're looking at. They're deriving a transfer speed from the file sizes and the amount of time it took to add them to the archive file which would almost always be done on local storage. If you want to get a bunch of files off a remote system, you'd typically create archive file on that remote system, and then transfer the archive file over the wire. It would be unusual for those values to show anything but local disk speeds. Modification times are easy to change. Saying that information shows conclusively that a FAT filesystem was used is also suspect.
This is testimonial evidence of bias that Horowitz was unable to find. Are Barr and Durham preparing us for a reckoning or a major letdown? I'm still leaning toward the latter.