What I am doing is saying that

Anyone who breaks news that
"Something huge will happen on May 11, the Colorado Regents meeting 30 May, June 1 at noon"

And then follows it up by saying "Something huge did happen but you can't know"

And ends by saying "By July 1 you'll know if something big happened when I said it did or not"

Isn't a useful source. I think he could well be right, and that's fine.  But at that point, the sum impact of the breaking news is "Stuff has been and will be happening and if you wait a month, you'll know what it was"

Which isn't more useful than saying "Well, we'll have a better idea by July 1st" which you and anyone else here can say.  I'm explicitly not saying he's wrong. I'm saying that the way he's telling us isn't actually providing any real information 

Again, not arguing the PAC will or won't survive or whether he knows things. Just that his model for sharing doesn't actually tell us much of anything