This was hashed out in another thread about the topic. This guy is a seemingly good guy that was pushing ivermectin was a cure for covid19. He sent this to Fauci as a way to troll him it would seem.
We still have a lot of digging to do before jumping to conclusions on things.
From an IT forensics point of view, it is not only a smoking gun, but completely relevent and over the mark.
It takes a lot to prove he didnt read it. Its like receiving a certified letter and finding it open on the table. You really gonna go with the story you signed for it, opened it, removed the contents, but never actually read it? That doesnt fly in court.
Why is it relevant if fauci did or did not read it? Genuine question.. this was sent by a random citizen and it’s just copied and pasted text from a treatment study, as other comments in this thread have pointed out.
Did not see the comments about that. If it was from a random, it then depends on filters, among other things.
Emails are simple, but they have a lot going on.
Email is reasonably assumed to have been read in general, unless it can be proven to have been put directly in junk/spam/trash by filters. There are read receipts, internal policies, all kinds of considerations.
I would assume because someone in his position would be obligated to reply to such an email, to disprove it, or something like that. I'm not really sure either
Maybe I am misunderstanding something. But couldn't anyone with Fauci's email just email him something ridiculous? Like if I email you asking about your drug dealing services, that doesn't incriminate you if you do not respond.
End result is as you said, if it ends up was a copy paste job of info on the net, it was probably glanced at, ignored, then left to sit.
It may not have any relavence at all, and he probably doesnt even remember looking at it if he's like the 99.9% of us just trying to get through the emails.
FYI:
IDK if you have to check email for work or not, I'm also making a couple assumptions as to what the actual foia request asked for as I have not read it.
Regardless, Many places get bent out of shape if you don't check email.
A few people with busy schedules have an assistant check, but not many as many emails require a direct response or contain sensitive info.
The fact that many responses are so short, it seems reasonable that he checks his own.
The email made it into the foia, so is also reasonable to assume it wasn't in junk. Also didnt get caught by server end pre-filters.
This was hashed out in another thread about the topic. This guy is a seemingly good guy that was pushing ivermectin was a cure for covid19. He sent this to Fauci as a way to troll him it would seem.
We still have a lot of digging to do before jumping to conclusions on things.
yeah, people need to stop getting excited over this one. It's meaningless if Fauci didn't acknowledge it.
From an IT forensics point of view, it is not only a smoking gun, but completely relevent and over the mark.
It takes a lot to prove he didnt read it. Its like receiving a certified letter and finding it open on the table. You really gonna go with the story you signed for it, opened it, removed the contents, but never actually read it? That doesnt fly in court.
Why is it relevant if fauci did or did not read it? Genuine question.. this was sent by a random citizen and it’s just copied and pasted text from a treatment study, as other comments in this thread have pointed out.
Did not see the comments about that. If it was from a random, it then depends on filters, among other things.
Emails are simple, but they have a lot going on.
Email is reasonably assumed to have been read in general, unless it can be proven to have been put directly in junk/spam/trash by filters. There are read receipts, internal policies, all kinds of considerations.
I would assume because someone in his position would be obligated to reply to such an email, to disprove it, or something like that. I'm not really sure either
Maybe I am misunderstanding something. But couldn't anyone with Fauci's email just email him something ridiculous? Like if I email you asking about your drug dealing services, that doesn't incriminate you if you do not respond.
End result is as you said, if it ends up was a copy paste job of info on the net, it was probably glanced at, ignored, then left to sit.
It may not have any relavence at all, and he probably doesnt even remember looking at it if he's like the 99.9% of us just trying to get through the emails.
FYI: IDK if you have to check email for work or not, I'm also making a couple assumptions as to what the actual foia request asked for as I have not read it.
Regardless, Many places get bent out of shape if you don't check email.
A few people with busy schedules have an assistant check, but not many as many emails require a direct response or contain sensitive info.
The fact that many responses are so short, it seems reasonable that he checks his own.
The email made it into the foia, so is also reasonable to assume it wasn't in junk. Also didnt get caught by server end pre-filters.