“We would have to have a conversation in a closed session, ma’am,” Elizondo said. “I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss specifically crash retrievals.”
Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., asked Elizondo about the document he signed with the Defense Department.
“You specifically said the document said you can’t talk about crash retrieval,” Moskowitz said. “Well, you know, you can’t talk about fight club if there’s no fight club.”
“>Correct,” Elizondo replied.
Serious question for an unserious sub:
Do you really believe it would be that easy to circumvent this super secret document?
Like, the only way they’d let this go is if the paper was an “in case of emergency” thing.
On the one in a billion chance you actually find a crashed alien spacecraft, you’re going to want to already have that paper signed, it’s not something you do after and people can just opt out of.
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.
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?
“>Correct,” Elizondo replied.
Serious question for an unserious sub:
Do you really believe it would be that easy to circumvent this super secret document?
Like, the only way they’d let this go is if the paper was an “in case of emergency” thing.
On the one in a billion chance you actually find a crashed alien spacecraft, you’re going to want to already have that paper signed, it’s not something you do after and people can just opt out of.
It’s usually not illegal to say you’re under an NDA.
It wouldn’t be a NDA for the government…
The only time the government needs an NDA is if the information is unclassified.
Do you think an alien spacecraft crashed, this guy investigated it, but it’s unclassified?
I’m just saying the document may not specify that it is illegal to discuss the existence of the document.
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?
You don’t think it would be different if you’re testifying to congress?
No I don’t think that, I know that…
But this clearly isn’t going to become productive