zlacker

>>lxm+(OP)
I'm curious if we'll ever find out what they thought they'd learn from this.

>>myself+p5
From the article, that’s why they withdrew it.

—-

“ The subpoena, issued as part of an investigation seeking to identify a child sexual exploitation offender, was withdrawn after investigators found the person through other means, according to a notice the Justice Department sent to USA TODAY's attorneys Saturday.”

>>mathat+P5
I think you may have replied to the wrong comment.

>>resolu+j6
I don't think they did. That reply tracks

>>tekrom+S9
To paraphrase: "What did they think they'd learn?" "That's why they withdrew it."

I don't understand how that reply works. Can you elaborate?

(The best way for me to reconcile those would be to interpret it as a snarky "you're realizing it's useless, they also realized that, so they withdrew it" but that doesn't answer the question of why they made the request in the first place. Or I could interpret it as "the quote below is why they withdrew it" but that's even further from answering the question of why they made the request in the first place. Is it supposed to mean "they withdrew it so we don't find out what they'd learn"? It's hard to see how withdrawing the request helps very much there. Overall, I'm lost.)

>>Dylan1+nf
Not being snarky- the FBI claimed they were looking for a pedo and found him elsewhere.

It could be a smoke and mirrors response to get people to say “well in that case...” but the article does answer the question.