I'm not sure I'd call three subpoenas "a string of subpoenas" even if it's technically correct. But I'm more talking about specifically mentioning that the subpoenas from March and April 2023 don't have a gag order. Why mention those months specifically if in the other months they didn't receive any? The natural thing would have been to end the sentence six words earlier.
When it requires so much "reading between the lines" that even this community doesn't have a strong consensus on whether this is being (illegally) communicated or not, I think it's plausibly deniable, but IANAL. Contrast with well-known canaries.
> I'm not sure I'd call three subpoenas "a string of subpoenas" even if it's technically correct
I would if the sequence was such that the receipt of eachbof thr subsequebt ones delayed writeup of the overall incident in the interest of completeness or because there was some relationship between them
> the subpoenas from March and April 2023 don't have a gag order. Why mention those months specifically if in the other months they didn't receive any?
Because you are doing an aggregate writeup of a series of events and you want to convey when they occurred and why you are able to do a detailed writeup.
