Commentary: Rowley's email logic not logical

File: Keith Rowley

Keith Rowley is now saying that the issue about the email he presented in Parliament on May 20 is not whether the emails are fake or not. He said what is important is the contents of the emails.

“What still is required to be done is to determine the authenticity of the substance...There are those who focus on its authenticity, but the content and corroborative aspect of the content, will always be of interest to us,” he told reporters Wednesday.

And he insisted that he was not required to authenticate the emails before taking them to Parliament. 

Acting police commissioner Stephen Williams has declared that the emails are fakes, Google International has corroborated that in correspondence to senior cabinet minister Suruj Rambachan and an internationally respected IT specialist has also said all the emails are fakes.

In wrapping up his no confidence debate after the government MPs said the emails were fabricated Rowley said he was no IT expert and admitted that the emails might have been fakes.

"Suppose the contents of one or two is true? Suppose one of them is right?" he asked. In his presentation to Parliament he also said he received them from a whistleblower and did not do anything initially. Several months latter he took the matter to the president, who passed it to the Integrity Commission for authentication.

Before going to Parliament he held a secret meeting with the chairman of the Integrity Commission, Ken Gordon, who advised him that the IC had not been dealing with the matter at the time.

Rowley's premise is that the details contained in those fake documents are so damaging that they need to be investigated even if the emails are fakes.

Such a position defies logic. How can the contents of a conversation be real if this alleged electronic conversation did not or could not take place?

What Rowley is is saying is that the conversation took place although at the same time he is admitting that the channels through which the alleged conversations took place may have been fakes.

Put even more simply he is saying a conversation can take place even if the parties didn't communicate with one another. How can anyone convey thoughts in an email if the email doesn't exist? 

One would think that somebody holding such a responsible position would think this out carefully and consider how silly the argument is. He's saying investigate someone even though there is nothing to investigate.

I know Rowley said he is no IT expert but kids in school understand this email protocol so how come it is so difficult for the opposition leader?

Somebody needs to help Rowley and explain how it works. So let me try.

In order to send an email to someone the sender must have the person's correct email address. The sender must also have a valid email address. Then the sender writes the message and sends it through the Internet. If the sender's email address and the receiver's email address are fakes or do not exist, the message goes nowhere. It's that simple. Most people using emails have experienced that problem.

SO even if the government officials wrote what Rowley claims they did and the email addresses are fakes, the messages could not be sent so what is there to investigate? It's time for Rowley to understand that our population is smarter than he thinks. They figure things out and they have already figured out that this email business was a big hoax. So let's move on, please. 

Jai Parasram