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.
My point was more that there is no evidence that the email was from anyone credible, and wasn't just made up by some random person and sent to him. If Fauci had responded to it, then that could prove that it was legitimate. But it doesn't matter that he read it if it's just fake garbage from someone who he doesn't know.
If someone random managed to email my work email about something illegal, then me reading it doesn't mean I am involved in illegal activity.
However, I could be missing something about the context of this email leak, i.e. if there is some reason why all the emails sent to Fauci are legitimate.
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 get that, but that doesn’t answer my question. Why does it matter if he read it or not?
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.
My point was more that there is no evidence that the email was from anyone credible, and wasn't just made up by some random person and sent to him. If Fauci had responded to it, then that could prove that it was legitimate. But it doesn't matter that he read it if it's just fake garbage from someone who he doesn't know.
If someone random managed to email my work email about something illegal, then me reading it doesn't mean I am involved in illegal activity.
However, I could be missing something about the context of this email leak, i.e. if there is some reason why all the emails sent to Fauci are legitimate.