It is weird, like they have information a person or persons of interest looked at that article during that time... did they see a text or email or post somewhere mentioning "he did it, mission complete, confirmed in USA Today" but don't have the info on the texter, poster or emailer?
So this may have more meaning than we think. Up to now we presumed that the DS had visibility of such info. If they are now unable to work such data via the tools they had, then they have no route to identify people via the old means they were using.
Or a scare tactic to get people to not look at these kinds of articles.
It is weird, like they have information a person or persons of interest looked at that article during that time... did they see a text or email or post somewhere mentioning "he did it, mission complete, confirmed in USA Today" but don't have the info on the texter, poster or emailer?
So this may have more meaning than we think. Up to now we presumed that the DS had visibility of such info. If they are now unable to work such data via the tools they had, then they have no route to identify people via the old means they were using.
That would be very good news indeed...
Someone in another thread had an idea that the subpoena was so they could use evidence they had already obtained thru unconstitutional means...
The specific time window makes that seem likely...
Or they were sending a message to someone.
https://files.catbox.moe/bzwafz.jpeg
Someone must have left a comment at that time they didn't like.
That was my first thought but I checked... USA today does not allow comments.
It still must be for people that log in to there, or how would they get phone numbers.
My guess would be a comment in some forum that shows it was viewed.
My take:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12izphtHfe/this-quote-was-posted-over-and-o/c/
Interesting. Thanks
That is odd. I am with USA Today on this.