My personal Slow disclosure theory says Elizondo is still on payroll performing a very specific function within the disclosure campaign. He is supposed to say specific things, he is also supposed to lie about specific things.

I believe at the hearing he was speaking truthfully and also fully in line with the intentions of whoever made him sign any nda.

And I'm saying that it would.

I've had government NDAs.

They explicitly said to not discuss the NDA until it had expired. If someone asked me before it expired I would legally have to do the "neither confirm or deny". If someone had asked me if something was in it, I would have to "neither confirm nor deny".

You could have asked me if my NDA was relevant to Jesus living in the center of the moon with Freddie Mercury. Or if one of the NDA said the sun rises everyday. My answer would legally need to be the same. Literally any question about an active NDA, the answer is the same.

What I could not do is say things are not in it, and when something was then change my answer.

But hey, I don't know you bro.

Maybe youve got more experience than me with this stuff.

How many decades have you had a clearance and when's the last government NDA you had expire?