QAA Podcast - Episode 226: Trump Indicted feat Allie Mezei

Episode Date: April 8, 2023

Folks, we got ‘em. Donald Trump has been indicted — or as Trump himself put it at Truth Social: he has been “INDICATED.” Manhattan prosecutors are accusing Trump of falsifying business records with the intent to conceal illegal conduct connected to his 2016 election. Will he be hanged at GITMO for treason? No. But what will happen? Lawyer Allie Mezei helps us break down known facts of the case and some possible future scenarios. We also discover how the QAnon community is reacting to the revelation. Spoiler: they’re still trusting the plan. Finally, we’ll take a peek at a new insider anon on 4chan who doesn’t quite have that Q magic. Subscribe for $5 a month to get an extra episode of QAA every week + access to ongoing series like 'Manclan' and 'Trickle Down': http://www.patreon.com/QAnonAnonymous QAA's Website: https://qanonanonymous.com Music by Pontus Berghe. Editing by Corey Klotz.

What's up QAA listeners? The fun games have begun. I found a way to connect to the internet. I'm sorry, boy. Welcome listener to chapter 226th of the QAnon Anonymous podcast, the Trump indicted episode. As always, we are your host, Jake Rakatansky. Ellie Mezzi.

And Travis View. Folks, we find. finally got him. Yep. By him, I of course being Julian, he got a little too far out of line. You sent him to a re-education camp where hopefully he'll learn some manners

and come back a better man. But yeah, we actually all agree that after he has spent the past four and a half years producing this podcast, he was entitled to a little spring break. So he will be appeared on the next premium episode. But after that, he's going to be logging off for the next few weeks and hopefully flushing out

the internet poison from his brain. Yes, I can only imagine after having months of having to edit the main show, the premium episode, and then also all the crazy, you know, research and mind melting that I can only imagine came with Man Klan. Yeah, our poor boy, we wish him well. Yeah, yeah, he will come back refreshed and full of more energy than ever to continue. you abusing me specifically. So looking forward to that. Yes. Meanwhile, do not write to me about any audio difficulties or technical mess-ups that

happen from now on in the Q&O anonymous podcast. All right. I think we're good to go. So in addition to Julian, we also got Trump. The 45th president of the United States has been indicted. Manhattan prosecutors are accusing Trump of falsifying business records with the intent to conceal illegal conduct connected to his 2016 election. And to help us make sense of those charges, we'll be talking to our legal correspondent, Ali, and Ali, thank you so much for joining us again to help us make sense of this. Yeah, you're welcome. You know me. I love crime.

Of course, we'll also discuss how the QAnon community and the conspiracist right generally is reacting to the news. And finally, we'll chat about an insider or not. who appeared on 4chan, who has attempted to reassure Trump supporters that everything is going to be okay. But before we get to those topics, I want to get some things off my chest regarding the recent interview of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green by journalist Leslie Stahl on the program, 60 Minutes. Now, when it was announced that Green would be interviewed on the show, a lot of people jumped to announce it immediately, fearing that the prestigious news show would platform or normalize Green. I personally, I held off from any criticism because I think it's possible to, like, interview these vile characters in a responsible way, but this was just not good.

It really felt like a kind of old school, very stodgy kind of news format for journalistic challenges that are very much kind of a 21st century. Yeah, you can't just try to force what they did in, like, you know, the 60s where, you know, it'd be like one very sensible liberal and then like one very sensible conservative. And we hear each of their opinions on, like, the, you know, one of the three nightly news shows, you know, with a, you know, a handful of anchors. And, you know, people walked away and they made their own decisions. Like, you, you can't do that with a politician like Marjorie Taylor Green. Yeah. Right. And I think that people tend to at this point, like, have strategies about how to turn those, those interviews or engagements into fodder for themselves.

And you need to prepare for that and engagement. that and perhaps do something novel in order to stave off that possibility. Right. Yeah. It didn't work very well. Like, for example, Leslie Stahl brought up, you know, for example, Marjor Taylor Green claiming that Democrats are all pedophiles and, you know, Green basically doubled down of that accusation.

The program, for example, didn't, like, put into context the ways in which, you know, queer people are demonized with these kinds of horrifying accusations, the history of it, the way it's used to justify violence. I think this kind of information would have been relevant context for those kinds of accusations. Now, Leslie Stolt did bring up some of the horrifying conspiracy theories that Green pushed in the past, such as the claim that the Parkland shooting was a false flag. And then when Green claimed that she never said that, the Green shows a Facebook post in which Green does, in fact, affirm that the shooting was a false flag. But on the topic of QAnon, Stahl only mentions it in the context of Green saying that she believed false things because of Q&N and kind of like apologizing for that on the House floor.

Shortly after she arrived in Washington, the Democratic-led House ousted her from her committees because of her past endorsement of violence against some Democratic leaders and her history of embracing QAnon that she explained in a speech on the House floor. stumbled across something, and this is at the end of 2017 called QAnon. I was allowed to believe things that weren't true. Did she say I was allowed to believe things? I was allowed to believe things. It was, yeah, I don't, it's a very strange phrasing. She doesn't mention, for example, that she actually, she did stumble upon this in late 2017, and she actually stumbled upon it, according to herself, because she heard about it from

Pizza Gate promoter Liz Croken. It's a fact she did not mention on the house floor. She also did not mention the fact that she promoted it, you know, for over a year. You know, again, all of this would be, I think, interesting, relevant context for the 60-minute segment. Sure. You know, there's nothing wrong with, like, evolving your views and being you're wrong, you know, that's healthy growth. You know, everyone has expressed beliefs that they now regret. That's a normal part of being human, whether or not your politician.

But when you're a member of Congress and what you believe directly translates to what kind of laws get passed, I feel like people are entitled to information about why you came to those beliefs and, like, how you change. Because, like, five years ago, Marjorie Taylor Green believed that there was a secret operation to take down the worldwide cabal. And there were military intelligence officials who were leaking clues about this operation on 4chan. And she believed this as a 43-year-old woman. So, you know, in order to believe these things, you have to have zero understanding of how, like, government works and how military works. and it's just incredibly naive and psychotic. Green also said that Hillary Clinton murdered JFK Jr. in a plane crash.

Well, she was allowed. I mean, she was finally allowed to believe these things. They had been kept, you know, they had been sort of kept away from her for a while. She has to run for Senate, right? So she runs for Senate in New York City. Okay. So she becomes senator in New York City. And yes, I could dive into Kennedy getting killed in the.

plane crash because isn't an interesting that he had announced he was going to run for Senate just before he died in a mysterious plane crash. But anyway, so that's another one of those Clinton murders, right? Just another one of those. Yeah. If nothing else, I feel like, you know, with her new position in Congress, if she still believes this, that, you know, she could help solve an unsolved murder that a lot of people, including the National Transportation Safety Board and the report about the plane crash, thought was due to mere pilot error. So, you know, that feels like me some clarification on how exactly that went down. Now, Green has insinuated that she lost faith in Q&N because Q said that the 2018 midterm elections were safe.

And what really happened was that Democrats did really well in Congress during that election. But I know this explanation is bullshit because I found posts of Green referencing Q drops in the positive way after the 2018 election. I think that that actually is not like a terrible like attempt at a dismount because finally it's something that like one you can point to it and it doesn't sound crazy so you're not putting off like more completely bonkers things that you believe into the public with your disavowal like oh well he made a concrete prediction about the election and it didn't happen. So that like almost seems like a reasonable reason to leave it. But it just kind of hides everything that lays under there. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it does. It does. It does sound like, you know, it does sound like a reasonable way a person might decide that Q was no longer legit. I know that Annans were very, very unhappy with that 2018 election. So it's even plausible. But again, I saw her, like, for example, respond positively to a Q drop decode from Q&N promoter Lisa May Crowley after that 2018 election. So she was very much in the community and still believing in the Q drops after that happened. So again, this is bullshit. and it's provably bullshit and no one will really talk about it. And also on top of that, after she was elected, while she was, you know, a congresswoman elect, she tweeted out an

article on Gab about QAnon in which she claimed that it was the first accurate article about people following Q. And it's basically just a pro QAnon blog post that claims that Q&N is, quote, about millions of people waking up to the lies. So, you know, we just don't have the full story about Marjorie Taylor Green's relationship with QAnon and precisely how she entered it. We know that she got from Liz Croke and then also how she exited it. And this interview didn't really help clarify these matters. But on to way to your matters because Trump makes history the very first ex-president to be arraigned in court. So, Allie, curious. Like, what can you tell us about these charges?

Are they serious? Are they treason? Is he going to get Mo? Well, are they serious? We'll discuss. that a bit later. Are they treason? No. And are they go, is he going to get Mo? Probably not. And by probably not, I mean, absolutely not. You cannot put United States citizens in Guantanamo Bay. So it's been all over the news. Donald Trump just got indicted on 34 felony counts in a state court in Manhattan. But there seems to be a whole lot of confusion as to whether or not the charges will actually stick. And a lot of the time when dealing with conversations about Trump, people run their mouths so much or assume that rules just don't apply to him, which, you know, I think that there's a reasonable,

it's somewhat reasonable to start thinking that. But a lot of the chatter around it kind of assumes that this is going to be some sort of Calvin Ball scenario. So, but it seems like even some very erstwhile liberal pundits have their doubts about whether or not the charges against Trump will stand up to scrutiny. I will say that based on a quick survey of legal pundits and also lawyers who run their mouths on Twitter, it seems like people who practice in New York State tend to be a bit more confident

about the strength of the indictments. And I want to say that there are all sorts of weird nuances to state law and its application that are really hard to grok if you don't have experience practicing there. And this is unfolding in a New York State criminal court. So there are going to be about a trillion little legal questions and nitpicks, and for the most part, we can only really speculate as to how the judge

will rule on them, based on people's experiences, past rulings, and the plain letter of the law. And also, I want to say that in my experience, state court judges are a little bit more mercurial than federal judges, but maybe that's just in the states where I do most of my practice. And, you know, questions of a fact will have to be decided by a jury as well, and you never know what a jury is going to do. So I can't tell you with anything close to 100% certainty what the judge or the jury is going to decide about the fate of Donald Trump. But I can walk you through the Manhattan DA's statement of facts and the indictments. And then we can chat about some potential roadblocks that the DA's case could run up against.

How does that sound? I mean, yeah, that sounds fantastic. Okay. So have you guys read the statement of facts? No, I have not. No, I have neither. To be fair, I hadn't either until Travis asked me to do this. What even is, what is the statement of facts?

What is, explain it, explain it to me. So a statement of facts is like a supplement to the indictment that describes the situation and the scenario around what the indictment is for. And it kind of gives us an idea about what the evidence that the prosecutor intends to present is going to indicate. Got it. So it's like the DA's office essentially being like, here to, here to rules, here's a facts and a case. And like, here's what you're going to see laid out over the, you know, over the course of the trial in that exact voice. That's a little bit more of an opening statement. But yeah, yeah, it does have a similar function.

Because, you know, a lot of the times an indictment will just be a reading of the counts. Like, for instance, if you look on the Manhattan DA's website, you'll see it into documents where there's the statement of fact and then there's the indictment. but the statement of facts informs the indictment. Got it. The statement of facts files with the indictment alleges a scheme between Trump, his attorney Michael Cohen, and America Media Inc., which is the parent company that owns the National Enquirer tabloid. And I'm going to call AMI for short.

This scheme, which happens before the 2016 presidential election, involves a plot to identify and purchase negative information about Trump in order to quash its post. publication and thereby influence the 2016 presidential election. Okay. According to the prosecution, in August 2015, there was a meeting in the New York Trump Tower between Trump, Michael Cohen, and AMI's CEO, David Pecker, where Pecker agreed that AMI would watch for people trying to sell damaging stories about Trump to the media, and then he would come to Cohen whenever they found something.

The plan hatched here is described as a catch and kill scheme. where AMI would approach sources and buy the publication rights to their stories, but then never print those stories. Trump was then supposed to reimburse AMI for those expenses. I mean, it's a real psychotic practice. It's just basically, this is really just high-level reputation management, right? It's just, I'm sure this practice is more widespread than Trump, but somehow these kinds of publications are able to just, like you said,

like buy the exclusive rights to the stories to ensure that they aren't actually reported elsewhere? Yeah, and a lot of the facts involving AMI were admitted in a non-prosecution agreement in 2018. The first alleged incident of the catch-and-kill scheme described in the statement of facts happened in the fall of 2016 and involved a former doorman at the Trump Tower who was trying to sell information regarding a secret child that Trump had fathered out of wedlock. AMI acquired the exclusive rights to the Dorman's story for $30,000 and falsely characterized this payment in its books, record, and general ledger. AMI subsequently investigated the Dorman's claims

and concluded that they probably weren't true, but Cohen instructed AMI not to release the Dorman from his agreement until after the election. Okay. And so the next incident involves a woman one, who has been revealed to be fitness model and playboy playmate, Karen McDougall. In summer 2016, AMI contacted Cohen and said that McDougal was alleging that she had an affair with Trump while Trump was married. From the indictment, the defendant did not want

this information to become public because he was concerned about the effect it could have on his candidacy. So thereafter, Trump, AMI, CEO, and Cohen had a series of discussions about who should pay off McDougal to secure her silence. The statement of facts alleges that after discussing it with Trump and Cohen, AMI paid off McDougall, agreeing to give her $150,000 for agreement not to speak out about the affair, and to feature her on two magazine covers and also give her a byline on a series of articles about her non-Trump-related adventures. Like with the Dorman, AMI falsely characterized the payment to McDougal in its books and records, including in its general ledger. In September 2016, Cohen and Trump were recorded discussing how best to reimburse AMI for catching the McDougal story, and how they could obtain the rights to the story,

an arrangement between AMI and Cohen in which AMI would transfer the rights to McDougal's story to a shell company owned by Cohen later fell through. And so here we're going to get to the part of it's central to the charges. The hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. Except this time, it seems that the money didn't go through AMI. The prosecutor alleges that it went through Cohen himself.

In October 2016, just before the election, The prosecution alleges that AMI put Cohen in contact with a lawyer working for Stormy Daniels. Cohen and Stormy's lawyer then negotiated a deal, trading Stormy silence about her weird date with Trump for a payment of $130,000. According to the prosecution, Trump really wanted to put off paying this money and told Cohen to try to delay paying Stormy until after the election, at which time they could pull out of paying her altogether, because then it wouldn't matter anymore. But apparently Trump relented and arranged to have Cohen pay.

The prosecution alleges that on October 26, 2016, Michael Cohen took a phone call from Trump. He then transferred $131,000 from a HELOC account into a bank account owned by his shell company. Shortly thereafter, he transferred the money to Stormy's lawyer. In January 2017, Trump arranged for the CFO of the Trump organization to reimburse Cohen for the amount that he paid to Stormy, as well as for some other expenditures that Cohen made for Trump. It was decided that the payments to Cohen would be disguised as legal retainer fees. No retainer agreement existed between Trump and Cohen. Between February and December 2017, Cohen submitted a number of invoices for legal fees,

and Trump paid them. As part of the internal record keeping in the Donald J. Trump revocable trust, which holds the Trump organization, the payments to Cohen were described as legal expenses. In total, there were 34 documents or business records related to this series of checks to Cohen that were maintained in the Donald J. Trump Rebiblical Trust's books. Okay, so essentially, if I'm, tell me if I'm getting this right. Essentially, he didn't want anybody to know that his lawyer fronted him the cash to pay off Stormy Daniels so she wouldn't talk about their affair in the months leading up to the election.

And he didn't want people to know that his company, then reimbursed, well, he didn't want them to know he was paying off an adult film star as opposed to just doing legal fees. Yes. That's the crime, is that would look like business, I'm just like reiterating this for myself because all this legal stuff is so hard for me to follow for whatever reason, for, you know, for good reason. It's people like me should be gate kept from this kind of knowledge.

But, yeah, so essentially he didn't want it to look like his company was paying a, you know, AMI or whatever, you know, to keep this story quiet because that probably would have been easier to leak or come out in the public. So instead, the fees were done backwards through Cohen's own bank account and then reimbursed as legal fees from the Trump organization. It doesn't exactly say why it went through Cohen instead of AMI. Just that at some point, AMI stopped doing the buying, but still acted as a middleman to set up these transactions. But sort of. That's so weird. It's a little bit more than that, but that's about the right gist.

And we're going to talk a bit more about that. So AMI, so basically the parent company of the National Enquirer was like brokering these deals through their own sort of financial outfit. And then for this particular one, so they did that for Karen McDougal, but then for this particular Stormy Daniels one, it was like this off the book, like they still facilitated the deal, but it was this off the book's thing where Cohen paid out of pocket. and then later, you know, got reimbursed under the disguise of legal fees? Yes.

Okay. That's so, yeah, it's so bizarre. I mean, you know, all of this stuff is totally foreign to me, but this feels like something that is part and parcel for anybody who is either a wealthy or B, works in the entertainment field or as a public figure of any kind. Yeah, and we're going to get a little bit into why the prosecution is saying that this is different. So, yeah, this is what Donald Trump was indicted on 34 counts.

for, claiming that the money he paid to Cohen was for legal services, instead of describing it as reimbursement for hush money that Cohen fronted to store me. So each of the 34 counts was a separate record that contained inaccurate information about the purpose of the payment to Cohen. Got it. Got it. That, okay, that makes sense to me. So every time he basically said, hey, it's legal fees and like some other reimbursements, every time that appeared on paper in the Trump organizations like bookkeeping, that is a count of, uh, charge? Yes. Okay, okay. And if it seems like it's an excessive number of charges for one instigating set of events, it kind of is, but it's within the prosecutor's discretion to do it

like that. Tons of records, yeah, exactly. Yeah, it's, you know, it's the prosecutor's call. Right, but it's not like what I saw some people, you know, sort of people speculating on Twitter being like, oh, 34 charges, like this is going to be way more than just business fraud. but he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha but it's like no he just committed business fraud like 34 times because like that's how many records they were keeping about all of this stuff and all in any kind of anytime you're you're transferring any kind of money or doing any kind of thing there's always like a ridiculous amount of paper that that follows in records that are kept so it makes sense right precisely and yes it does look like all 34 charges appear to be for the stormy payoff so

why did the statement of facts include all that information about the Dorman and McDougal scenarios? If I have to give my guess, I think it's likely that the prosecution wants to use those allegations and evidence associated with those allegations to begin to establish Trump's catch and kill tactic and the intent behind the tactic, which is going to become, and I'm going to talk about intent later, but that's going to become important for the crime. So it has to be that like he did it with the intent. of what, like lying to, or misrepresenting himself. Okay, okay, I'm getting ahead of myself.

I'm sorry. But yeah, no, no, you're going in the right direction. Okay. So Trump's pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts, and it's looking like the case will be set for a jury trial sometime early in 2024. I wouldn't be surprised if it got pushed back for some reason. Now, with the facts on the table, we can take a look at the statute that Donald Trump was charged 34 times under.

Section 175.10 of the New York Penal Code, which is falsifying business records in the first degree. So, according to the New York Penal Code. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree. And when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. All right, so it's not a super helpful definition. No, no, I'm lost. To figure out what that means, we have to go to section 175.05, which is falsifying business records in the second degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he, one, makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, or two, alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes, or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise.

I mean, Travis, we just watched a movie about this for our premium in my fellow Americans. That basically, you know, one of the lesser crimes in the film is falsifying business records. Okay, or number three, omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so, which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position. Or, number four, prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise. So basically, it can't just be an oopsie on I forgot. It has to be an oopsie on pretending to forget for X, Y, and Z. Yeah, yeah. Got it. Okay. So falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. However,

once there's that additional intent to commit aid or conceal a crime as described in section 175.10, it becomes a classy felony. Being felonies, classy felonies are more serious than misdemeanors, but they're also New York's least serious type of felony. For the purpose of illustrating the relative gravity of the crime, I have gathered together a handful of nonviolent New York classy felonies for listeners to contemplate. Excellent. Negligent homicide. Fept, welfare or insurance fraud or stripping parts from automobiles where the value of what you take is between $1,000 and $2,99. Ah, this is the catalytic converter clause.

Yeah. Doing graffiti that causes $250 of damage to someone else's property. Selling between 25 grams and 4 ounces of weed. Possession of precursor materials of methamphetamine. Buying over $100 worth of things from vegetables. Mending machines using fake coins. Oh, they got me. My favorite crime.

Digging up a grave and stealing the bones you find there. See, it would be cooler if Trump got busted for this. Yes, I agree. And the whole hush money thing. Yeah, I want you to imagine Trump doing all of these crimes because that's way funnier than what he's been indicted for. So if you direct a laser pointer at an aircraft, it becomes a classy felony if the aircraft test to make a significant change of course because of you.

You can also catch a class e felony from doing a crime called substitution of child, which is when a parent or guardian leaves a kid at your daycare, and when they come back, you give them a different child than the one they dropped off. Oh, well, that's also a funny caper. I mean, it's quite a caper, but I'm a little shocked that this is equivalent to using counterfeit currency to buy a hundred dollars worth of snickers. Like, you know, giving someone for a wrong kid and stealing $100 worth of snickers are apparently equivalent in this day in New York. And grave robbing.

Yeah. So, yeah, there are a lot of other crimes in this category involving tampering with sports betting, bribery, falsifying or concealing various documents, and then things like contempt of court and witness intimidation. I mean, I've kind of simplified some of these, but that's broadly the sort of thing a classy felony is. Theoretically, if the jury convicted Trump for this, he'd have to have a sentencing hearing. and there the judge would determine if and how long he'd go to prison based on the facts of the case. The judge would also have to decide at that hearing whether or not he'd serve as sentences concurrently, meaning they're all being served at the same time or consecutively, meaning one after the other. And I think that there would be no way that these sentences could be consecutive.

They would have to be concurrent. So the top end of prison on this is about four years. Does Trump have any previous, like, convictions in New York? No, I don't think so. So the penalty for a classy felony in New York ranges from one to four years of imprisonment, but there does, however, appear to be options for sentences of probation for first-time offenders. If the judge decides, that's what's in the interest of justice. And, you know, we just discussed, as far as I know, Trump has never had a felony or misdemeanor in New York before.

Or anywhere. Clean record. Absolutely pristine. Yeah, yeah, I don't, I don't think. but he's been caught for a lot of crime. No, no. I mean, he is a maestro at doing shady things and not suffering any penalties for it. So we'll see if they nail him this time.

Yeah, I mean, I have to imagine. I mean, it'll be interesting to see, right? And it's so funny because we try not to do a ton of speculation on this particular podcast. But it will be interesting to see because my gut instinct is, is that if he's found guilty on a number of the charges, that they'll want to make a little bit of an example of them. They need, you know, especially if the trial is, you know, leading up to the election, it's in the middle, you know,

the summer of next year, I have to imagine they would do some kind of maybe ceremonious, like, night in jail, you know, he's got to spend the night. And, of course, goes to a very, I don't even know, where would they take a, where would a president serve time? I mean, are they part of the middle? military? Would it be a military, uh, uh, jail? Or would it be like, Ali, do you have any idea? Well, usually if you're convicted on a state offense, you are going to be put in a state

prison. So I would assume some sort of like jailhouse for a short sentence. And I'd guess that he would get to spend his time and like his one night, in theory, if that was what happened, his one night in a cell on his own. That's, that's what I would guess if that was the scenario, but I don't know 100%. Yeah, I mean, it's, you know, it's tough. It's tough. I don't think it would be, you know, an Epstein scenario just because any bad thing that Trump has to say about anybody, he's already said 100 times over publicly and

online and wherever he wants to. So I don't know, yeah, it'll be interesting to see what happens. For sure, no any like meaningful consequences. I can safely say that. Right. So, okay. Now I'm going to go through a couple of potential issues with the indictment that have been the subject of discourse in the media and on the internet. Many people questioning whether the charges will stick have brought up the statute of limitations.

A statute of limitations is a law that sets a deadline for filing a lawsuit or criminal charges based on the type and the date of the offense. New York statute of limitations for falsifying business records is five years, meaning that five years after the crime occurs, a process. prosecutor can no longer bring a case against the defendant. The latest of the alleged falsifications happened in December 2017, which was over five years ago. But sometimes a statute of limitations can be told, which means a pause of the clock that starts running when the offense is committed. New York law explicitly tolls the statute of limitations when the defendant is continuously outside the state of New York. So if Trump's legal team wants to argue that the statute of limitations has run on the charges. The prosecution might come back and say that it was told in the period where

Trump remained outside of New York. That being said, I'm not sure how the word continuously would operate there. Also, at the beginning of the pandemic, Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order that paused all statute of limitations in New York for a period of time. And that may also go into the math to determine whether or not the indictment was timely. Okay, we got a couple for the good guys. So another matter that is drawn scrutiny is the requisite intent to defraud in Section 175 statutes. So let's take a bit of a step back. And Jake, you were talking about this. Intent, which is often called mens rea, is a really important part of criminal law.

For a defendant to be criminally responsible for a crime, they must possess the required intent when they do the act. Broadly, there are two types of intent, general intent and specific intent. Some places break it down further, but let's just keep it simple for our purposes. For a general intent crime, all that the prosecution needs to show is that the person intended to do the crime. In a lot of states, Battery is a general intent crime. Say, Travis punched Jake in the face. And I was prosecuting Travis for Battery in one of these states. Yes.

All I would have to show is that Travis punched Jake on purpose, as opposed to swinging his arm and accidentally hitting Jake or something like that. Okay, so different than if Travis just, you know, did the old Simpsons of like, see, I'm going to stand on one end of this room and I'm going to swing my arms and if you walk into me, it's your fault. Right, exactly. Okay. They meant to do the thing. But for a specific intent crime, the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted intending to achieve a desired outcome. For example, in most states, burglary requires a person to enter a property with the intent to commit another crime like theft. And in this case, the Section 175 crimes about falsifying records require that the defendant falsify the records with the intent to defraud.

If the prosecutor doesn't even allege that the document falsification was done with the intent to defraud, then Trump can't be convicted. But many people familiar with New York law, such as the bloggers at Just Security, have pointed out that New York State has a very broad definition of intent to defraud for the purpose of falsification. business records. Some people have been kind of confused by this because the United States Supreme Court has limited the intent to defraud to the intent to deprive people of money or property or to cause other pecuniary loss. But that only applies to federal fraud statutes. What we're dealing with here is a New York state statute. And according to New York's case law interpreting a New York statute, the intent to defraud can be established when a defendant acts for the purpose of frustrating the state's power to faithfully carry out its own law. And on this standard, the law doesn't require

prosecutors to show pecuniary or potential pecuniary loss to the government or anyone else. So, as the just security blog explains, if the prosecution could show that Trump falsified or knowingly directed the falsification of the records in order to frustrate the power of New York state officials to, for instance, regulate elections or administrate taxation, then the prosecution would be able to satisfy the element of intent to defraud that we see in both the misdemeanor and felony, Section 175 crimes. And this gets on to another similarly related issue about intent that a lot of people have been debating over with this. So both the misdemeanor and felony document falsification charge require that intent to defraud. But we're not talking about the misdemeanor here. We're

talking about the felony. And the felony, which is what Trump is charged with, requires the prosecutor to further show that there was an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. So this, of course, has left people questioning what crime that is, because Trump hasn't been charged with any other crimes as of right now. And the indictment and the statement of facts don't exactly spell it out for us. But during a press conference, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg dropped some hints about what those crimes Trump allegedly was committing, aiding or concealing were. He claimed that Trump may have been trying to obscure a scheme to violate New York election laws

to circumvent the federal campaign contribution cap and to cover up the false statements that AMI included in its own record keeping. So you might be asking, why would a hush money payment violate federal campaign contribution laws? As Jake pointed out, this happens all the time in entertainment. Well, under federal election law, an individual can only make a $3,300 donation to a presidential candidate, and in-kind donations can be viewed in the same light as cash donations. Because Cohen buying Stormy Silence was intended to benefit the Trump campaign, it might be considered an in-kind donation by Cohen. And remember, making this improper in-kind contribution is one of the crimes that Michael Cohen pled guilty to in 2018. But some people think that that's not going to be enough for the purposes of this case,

because what Cohen pled guilty to was a federal crime. And according to Mark Pomerantz, who worked on the investigation before resigning from the Manhattan DA's office, says that there is no precedent in New York State as to whether or not a prosecutor can point to a federal crime in order to illustrate intent for the purposes of felony record falsification. However, that kind of runs contrary to a purely textualist interpretation of the state. statute, which just as a crime without limiting it to New York state crimes. In addition to this, some analysts think that even though Cohen pled guilty, what he did wasn't actually a legal under federal election law, as in paying Stormy Daniels off didn't actually count as a campaign

contribution. And these people tend to think that Cohen shouldn't have pled and he should have fought the charge and that if he had fought it, he would have eventually gotten off. Well, because somebody could make the argument, right, that Trump is, not only just running for president, but that he was a, you know, a celebrity. He had a very popular show on, you know, whatever network the apprentice was on. And so, you know, what he was doing with the hush money payment was actually to, you know, protect his image as an entertainer as opposed to a candidate. I guess you would have to, you would have to have communications, which I would imagine

probably exist of them saying, you know, if this Stormy Daniels story gets out, this is going to be really bad for my campaign. But even then, paying for her silence, it does seem like a little bit of a twist of logic to say, well, that was a campaign contribution by Cohen. And it exceeded the amount that you're allowed to do. And so, therefore, that violated the law. Right, right. You're actually getting on to what a lot of people have been saying. I think that maybe some of Trump's own defense teams have put this out there at one point, where there's been some rumblings that Trump might plan to defend himself by saying that whatever Cohen's motives were for making the payment, that Trump himself participated in the scheme to buy Stormy's silence and to cover it up

with only really the belief in intent that he was doing it to hide from his family that he was having an affair. So if he did it all to protect his family's feelings and he didn't intend to commit aid or conceal a violation of election law or tax law or any law. So in essence, he would be trying to say, I didn't want to deceive New York State authorities. I didn't want to cover up any crime. And I was only doing it all to lie to my family. Or, you know, as you were saying, I was only doing it all to cover up and protect my reputation as an entertainer. That being said, for the reasons that you said, I don't think that the defense will be meritorious.

The prosecutor stuffed that indictment with statements like this. Could you take that statement? Trump instructed Cohen that if they could delay the payment until after the election, They could avoid paying all together because at that point it would not matter if the story became public, end quote. And to quote, the participants also took steps that mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme. So if the prosecutor shows evidence that those statements were actually made, it's likely that a finder of facts like a jury would determine that Trump's actions were for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election. But, you know, you never know. That's interesting because it seems as though Trump being kind of a cheapskate and trying to back out of what he's promised making these statements perhaps strengthen the case against him.

Oh, yeah. If he had just paid it and not said anything, this would be a little bit harder to make. And he would have an easier time defending it. That's funny. Right. So, okay, so just for my layman's understanding once again, so the idea that he said, you know, we don't have to pay. her after the election, it won't even matter then, is you could, one could argue that he knew that paying her off before the election would be advantageous to his chances at winning. Yeah,

or, you know, if he was really doing it to protect his family's feelings, you know, why would he suddenly not care after the election anymore? Oh, so wonderful. So this is going to be a trial, whenever, if and when it, you know, it goes to trial next year. We're just going to hear like hundreds of people basically trying to diagnose what was in Donald Trump's brain at a given time? Yep. Oh, that's what intent is. Oh, this is exactly what we want. We all want to know.

We all want to like look at this like, you know, like McDonald's rapper, greasy casino guy and try to figure out exactly. The guy who was at a press conference and was like, man, woman, cloud video. Like, we're going to really try to figure out what kind of where his synapses were firing. and why he did the things that he did. This is only going to be good for the American people, I think. Yep, 100%. I just want to backtrack a little bit to say that, so a lot of people think that if what Cohen did wasn't actually a crime,

then Trump couldn't have falsified records for the purpose of concealing a crime. So as a matter of law, he would get off. This wouldn't be an issue. But I've seen other lawyers disagree and argue that the prosecution doesn't even need to show that Trump or anyone in his circle. actually committed a crime, just that Trump thought something was a breach of the law and that he falsified the records with the intent to cover that up. So yeah, it's just more stuff about what's going through Trump's brain. Yeah. A lot of it's going to like, you know, it's going to depend on what Trump knew,

what Trump said, what Trump instructed people to do. And based on all of those facts, the jury is going to have to determine what they think Donald Trump was thinking. And no wonder, people are losing their minds over this. I think everybody that is, you know, that understands just how bad Donald Trump was for the country at large. You know, they've gone through, you know, about a dozen different experiences of people talking about these potential illegal acts that he did and what was going through his brain and what's going to end up happening and what are the consequences going to be. I mean, we've been through this enough times and had, you know, him completely escape any kind of responsibility or suffer any kind of consequence that now

it's, you know, I think you almost have to sort of talk yourself up and go, oh, yeah, well, this one, I think they, I think this is a much, I think this is a strong case, you know, it's like because, I mean, I can only imagine what happens if we go through another one of these. Yeah, and I mean, I also think that, you know, when people talk about Donald Trump facing consequences for his actions. It's, you know, I don't think that the actions that they're talking about him facing consequences for are things like paying people hush money or doing a little bit of, you know, weird record keeping with his organization. It's, it's not like the sort of behavior of it people want to see him be held to account for. And it's certainly not the consequence that

people, you know, I think, you know, your average sort of politics followers probably just sick of all this, but, you know, your average sort of liberal, I guess, is, you know, what they want to see Trump punished for is for weaponizing racism in the country, for, you know, mishandling, you know, a global pandemic, you know, be held accountable for the way that he talks about and treats women and all of these really sort of deeply moral sort of injustice. that, you know, everybody could sort of see plain as they. And then to have it sort of kind of hinge on it's like, well, yeah, he like falsified, like, you know, he falsified these records to get around, you know, having people find out

that his, you know, that his company sort of indirectly paid for, you know, this adult film star with which he had an affair, you know, to keep her from talking. If it's like, oh, even if he got the, Matt, they made a total example of him, he got guilty of everything, max penalty, four years, you know, in jail. it still wouldn't, I think, satisfy, you know, most people because the crimes that he's already gotten away with or, you know, the alleged crimes that you believe he's already gotten away with, just pale, you know, they're much more, you know what I'm trying to say. It's like they're much more egregious than even the best outcome of this scenario. They're more morally weighty than doing something to frustrate the administration of New York tax law. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah. Yeah, and I think that that's kind of one of the reasons why, you know, if anything ever comes out of the investigation in Georgia, into the pressure that he put on state election officials into changing the results of the election. I think that one is going to be one much more interesting, but also much more salient to conversations about him facing consequences for his actions. I think that's a really good point. And, you know, people who are optimistic at least, you know, who I, who I. I read on Twitter, are hoping or are convinced that, you know, this is the first shoe to drop. This is the shortest wall closing in and that there will be taller and more inescapable walls to follow.

Right, right. Yeah. So, you know, as listeners can probably grasp at this point, there's a whole lot of ifs as to whether or not Trump gets convicted here. And a lot of these issues are going to have to be navigated by the parties and by the courts. And, you know, here's time for me doing some base speculation. there is a non-zero chance that Trump commits perjury during the course of the proceedings or some other wildcard is pulled.

And then another circus starts over that. So I hope that this segment was able to help everyone understand the case against Trump and, you know, its supposed strengths and supposed weaknesses a little bit better. Yeah, yeah, it's interesting stuff and historic, even though despite its historic nature, still makes me feel a little bit empty. I always thought there would be some sort of... Listen, I live in Illinois. If you are the executive, you're supposed to go to prison.

Oh, yeah. That's just a... They have a special suite for a Chicago politicians there in the Illinois prisons. Here's my strategy on how Donald Trump gets out of this. There's some sort of, I don't know if you can do this under a New York law. There's a recall election for the governor. And then Rod Blagojevich somehow gets elected. governor in New York. And then Rod Blagojevich pardons Trump as a favor for pardoning him. Well,

commuting a sentence. Ooh, that is some 11D chess. Yes. Yeah, that would complete the circle. But yeah, all this stuff, like, honestly, like, it's nice to kind of understand it on a, just kind of a simple, realistic level, because you see so much baking out there about how this is all going to shake out. and it's oh god it's just it's so exhausting to me to the idea that for fun people want to dive into like every tiny minutia of this legal case and listen to a dozen legal experts about what could and could not happen and the idea that this will continue for a year uh you know before you know before he even sees the inside of a court case is just i don't know it's it's exhausting it's overwhelming to me. I'm sure, I'm sure we will get some, some new cue drops in the midst of it.

And like every, everything he does and every single part of this, even though it's kind of empty, is just going to generate so many news pieces, so many opinion pieces, so many online fights, so many podcasts, so many blogs. Yes. And it's all about Donald Trump. It's like, this guy has just been on my TV screen and in the forefront of my mind for like the last seven years or something like that. And it's just all of these things is just like, oh, well, now they're going to, there's going to be a whole, yeah, like a whole new podcast devoted to, you know, what Trump's like daily prison life was for 24 hours, you know, that he served or something like that. And it's just, I don't know. When are we done with this, you guys?

When do you think this ends? There is no end. Do you think that in like the ad astra, like, you know, Martian colony or whatever, you know, when they're running like crazy, you know, space missions in, you know, zero G or low grab moon buggies? Do you think that people will still be talking about Donald Trump? Do you think there will be news updates on like what level of decomposition his bones are at? You know, we can commit a New York state classy felony by checking. Yes, we absolutely could. And Travis, I understand that, you know, with this very sad news for people in the Q&on community, that they have, you know, they feel some type of way about all of this.

Yeah, of course. You know, this was not the result, you know, obviously that Q&O followers were expecting. They thought that Obama and Hillary and Comey and these sorts of people would be locked up for heinous. crimes instead of like instead of first trump getting these state charges for you know falsifying business records it honestly could not have gone worse for them in terms of what they hoped for and what they believed it really it could not have gone more how they did not expect and and you you know in that perspective you know as much as i think it's very ugly i do understand the Schaden Freud being enjoyed by, you know, many liberals everywhere.

It's got to, I mean, it's hard not to, you know, want to feel good about your sort of political, you know, the craziest fringe of your political spectrum, just having to eat a tremendous humble pie. Well, I mean, he also, like, ran in 2016 on lock her up, lock her up. And it's kind of funny when the lock her up guy may or may not be getting locked up. Yeah, and the people who, you know, you called snowflakes and, you know, they couldn't hang with you. They were too soft. They're now back in your face on social media apps going, lock him up. That's right.

We got the lock up. Not you guys. Your guys locked. You know, it's got a, it's tough. Tough place to be in. Now, of course, the Qadon community. The one thing that they do have going for them is eternal optimism. So they mostly didn't let these events dampen their spirits.

In fact, they actually think it's a good thing. And it's going to lead to the kinds of storm that they were hoping for. One Q&M promoter on Twitter, who goes by the name Santa Trump, speculated that the indictment needed to happen in order to get the real bad guys. And he said this. Durham needs precedent. Trump gets the slings and arrows first. And then it boomerangs back on the real baddies.

It must be done right. It must be done. According to the rule of law, it must carry weight. So, yeah, a lot of Q and followers, they made reference to Q drops. They made reference to a boomerang, supposedly, this is the belief that first he needs to suffer some sort of criminal consequences and then it's going to come back on the guy, all the people that they actually want arrested. Let's see how that goes.

So shortly after the indictments, Trump took to truth social in order to denounce the indictments. And in doing so, he did one of his classic Trump misspelling. So Trump's post was meant to say, These thugs and radical left monsters have just indicted the 45th president of the United States. But he misspelled indicted. So instead says this. Radical left monsters have just indicated the 45th president of the United States. Oh, Trump, you scamp.

I know. Classic, class. You know, it's like there's lots of theories why he constantly makes these misspellings. Like, you might, may simply not give a shit. This may be an intentional strategy to get liberals to spread his post on, for example, Twitter, where he's not posting right now. So that's, you know, so that the, you know, the Libs Conservment make fun of the spelling. And then in doing so, actually spread his message, which, you know, I always thought was an interesting idea. Huh, that is interesting.

A lot of laymen don't really know legal terms. So I think that there's probability that it's an honest mistake. All right. We'll see. But of course, in Q&N world, mispellings matter. And so they thought that this misspelling was actually a secret message. For example, the Q&Vlogger and we know speculated that the misspelling was actually referring to an earlier cue drop that used the word vindicated.

President Trump says these thugs and radical left monsters have just indicated the 45th President of the United States of America. Did you catch that? So you added an A in there. Indicted is what it's supposed to say, right? Well, if you go to the Intel Board at 3371, posted July 8th, 2019, allowing anonymous folks to go out there in research, sometimes you need to take one for the team publicly before you are.

You ready? Vindicated as a hero. Indicated? Vindicated. It's a stretch. I give it a B minus. Well, yeah, this is what we're working with. So other Q and followers pointed to another Q drop, which stated that first indictment

will trigger massive population awakening. So this is a 2019 QDrop. And of course, at the time, there was a belief that was referring to, you know, Comey, Obama, Hillary, someone like that, that they would be indicted. And then this would herald the Great Awakening. Of course, in light of recent events, this QDrop has been reinterpreted to mean that actually is Trump's indictment. going to lead to the Great Awakening. And this is going to boomerang on them. Let's go back to

post 3717 to December 17, 2019. It says the following. First indictment unseal will trigger mass population awake. First arrest will verify action and confirm future direction. They will fight, but you are ready. Marker 9. So yes, this first arrest, this first indictment has now shown everyone the path. Everything has been set in motion. They took the bait. everything is prepared now to go after the deep state players. So they're still winning, actually. Oh, there's recent stream. I was going to say they're winning, they're winning even more because now they've got

something to decode again. Look, if the storm came, right, and Hillary Clinton went to jid, there'd be no need for any kind of Q drops because the Q would have predicted it. It happened and they were living in the beginnings of the utopian society that they imagine. But with Trump indicted and sort of on the ropes, you get to actually. You know what? You know what you've got about how many Q posts were there, Travis? Do you know off the top of your head about? Uh, that nearly 5,000, a little less than 5,000. Good news. You've got nearly 5,000 posts to go through again and see how they interpret this new spectacle that's, that's happening that seems completely impossible.

So you know that there's a secret sort of conspiracy behind it all. Yeah, you know, it's the, um, the fillers over and the plots rolling again. Yeah. Yeah. A reason to bake. A memoir by Travis View. In a recent stream, Q&M promoter 107 talked to fellow QAnon promoter, Nino Rodriguez, and they compared Trump to a Madador who is exhausting a bull, who is the deep state. Now, you may recall that at a recent event, Julian and myself went to Frisco, Texas, and we saw Wano7 basically promote these, what they called El Magador jackets, and they depict in sort of an illustrated Trump distracting a bull with a, a,

American flag. But yeah, so here's what Juan O'Savins said about these recent events. The Matador, the megadour, this is the third round of the bull fight. The bull is getting tired. Trump taunting the bull, as you're saying, is exactly what we want, correct? Trump has wanted this. We need the deep state to make this move, correct? Well, okay, let me say it the way Trump said it. At Waco the other day, President Trump said, this is, a battle to the death. This is life and death. We're going to go in there and kill the deep state. Side point, was that guy wearing a deep underground military bases shirt? Yes, he was. A dumb shirt. Yeah, Dumm's. Yep. Mm-hmm. Yeah, Nino Rodriguez. Something I thought was interesting was that this was not the only

place I saw that Matador metaphor when talking about Trump. I also heard it when I saw. I saw it when I saw Lara Logan appear on Steve Bannon's podcast. And she basically talked about the exact same thing. And so now what's happened is that the Matador is in the ring, right? We've gone through the first stage of the bull fight, right, where everybody was bringing out the bulls and the fanfare and getting the crowd ready. And then you had, you know, the lower Matadors who are in the ring tiring out the bull. That's what we've been going through.

We've been tiring out the bull with the election. fraud and Russia collusion and all of these things. But obviously Trump is the Madador. So 107 actually he claims he speaks to Lara Logan. So this seems to indicate that he's telling the truth in that case. So if you ever see someone comparing Trump to a Matador, they probably got that from Q&on. That's such a weird metaphor she used there at the end where she's saying that we're of a lesser matadors tiring them out with election fraud and with Russia collusion, where it seems like she

almost gets the roles reversed there for a second. Like, wouldn't the lesser Madadors be the, you know, the anti-election fraud claims or the Russia collusion claims that Trump had to fight against and were wearing him down? It just doesn't seem like, you know, her extended, um, her extended metaphor of it she uses to give herself and other influencers like her in that space, A place in the grand plan really hangs together. Yeah, I think you're right. I think you actually just passed the audition to appear on Steve Bannon's podcast. You'll be placing Lara Logan because you are more cogent in your metaphors.

Oh, no. Now, before we go today, I also want to mention that Trump's indictment has inspired the start of another insider or not. I mean, like we've talked on the show before, people larping as if they have secret inside information is really just part of 4chan culture. It was even before QAnon showed up and it's still going on. And they haven't talked about every kind of like insider anon. But it's just sort of interesting to see how this, you know, I guess this keeps happening. Now, this latest anon calls himself plus ultra. On April 4th, they introduced themselves as insider here plus ultra. What does plus ultra mean? Well, it happens to be the motto of Spain because it's Latin for further beyond. And where are mandators from? Spain. Oh, there you go. This is a Qa Matador. That makes sense. But, you know, knowing 4chan's roots as an anime board, a Plus Ultra is probably more likely a reference to the media franchise My Hero Academia, which is based on the superhero manga of the same name. So here is Plus Ultra's first post.

And they did great right out of the date because they did two misspellings in the very first sentence. They spelled indictment as insistement. And they also spelled Obama as Osama. So great, great. whatever. So here's how this particular non kick things off. You can see the Trump in Kickedment as a loss, or you can see how it opens the door to prosecution of Clinton, Bush, Cheney, and Osama. Maybe he's just alive.

One of two scenarios will occur. Charges are thrown out, or jury acquits, most likely. Everyone knows this is a terrible case. Two, Trump gets jail time. This makes it easier to arrest Black Hats, who won't be able to claim. Trump is persecuting his rivals since he's in a jail cell. Biden has already been turned and is cooperating with the white hats. He is available to intervene, including pardon. Trump will not be the

nominee for 2024. It will be one of his children. When it becomes clear that they can't stop the agenda, it is going to get ugly. We assess a near 100% chance of California's succession. High likelihood of other states. There will be violence. Prepare, but be optimistic. We are going to win, and you can play a key part in the victory. Get right with God. Become white-pilled. Build, encourage. Optimism is contagious.

Worthy questions may get an answer. Is white-pilled just Nazis? I mean, white, I mean, it is certainly used by Nazis. Is it like the hope pill? White pill? White hats. Yeah, well, it's the opposite of black-pilled, you know? Black-filled means you're despairing.

You think all the bad guys are going to win. There's no chance for victory. white-pilled, then your particular version of, you know, the right-wing utopia is going to come true, at least in that particular space. Got it. Okay. So, you know, we got some pretty solid predictions here. So one of Trump's children will be the 2024 nominee.

I mean, that nominee is going to be, you know, announced, you know, early next years. I mean, you know, there's going to be a primary. So we're going to see how that comes to pass. There's also, you know, California breaking with the union. So we'll see. I do want to point out that it would be impossible for Biden to pardon Trump for this current indictment if Trump is indeed convicted. It's a New York state crime. So the governor of New York would have to pardon him.

The president can only pardon federal prisoners, well, federal convictions. So even if Biden is under the control of the white hats, he couldn't pardon Trump for this particular crime, even if you want to. So we have an impossibility, a couple mispellings. Despite that, you know, this particular anon got dozens of responses and questions. Of course. Of course, the very first question that Plus Ultra answered referenced QAnon. So Plus Ultra apparently has a favorable attitude towards Q&N. They write, we are not Q.

Many misunderstand the purpose of Q. They correctly perceive it was done to stop Trump supporters from overthrowing the government, but it was not a black hat operation. Violent overthrow of the government would have started World War III. It was done to wake people up, get them to do research. So they're saying essentially that they sort of agree that QAnon was what was a type of sciop, you know, but it was done with good intentions to prepare people for, you know, this mass awakening triggered by Trump's arrest.

That's right. So they do agree that Trump was some kind of sciop in order to like pacify Trump supporters, but also that's a good thing. Right, right. It's very, yeah, it's very strange tone. It's basically like, yeah, based on everything, you know, you guys are going through, like you would have been right to, you know, violently overthrow the government. And look, we were looking out for, we were looking out for you. You know, we wanted to pacify you and get people to sort of, you know, get on the same wavelength, you know, about their beliefs, you know, and then let the, you know, wait for the big boys to come in and do the violence in some way, some capacity. I guess? I don't know. All feels a little familiar to me. Play the hits.

Plus Ultra also fielded the question about Bermini Road. And this is an underwater rock formation in the Bahamas, speculated by some to be an ancient man-made road to Atlantis. But most geologists have concluded that's just a naturally occurring formation.

But this is Plus Ultra's take on it. Bermini is probably from an ancient advanced civilization before the flood. possibly a colony of Atlantis. The ice shelves were larger, so the sea level was lower than. A lot of the ruins of the anti-deluvian civilizations are along those ancient shorelines, which are now under about 100 feet of water. Isn't this the stuff that was put forth in that Graham Hancock Netflix show?

I'm pretty sure that they had an entire spot on the Bimini Road in there. Yes, yes, yes. They referenced this in the bizarre pseudo-archology show, ancient apocalypse. So probably picked it up from there. It is, I mean, it is, it is a concept decades older than that. Here we also get, uh, get some good old flood geology saying like, you know, there's an ancient flood that washed away and caused a lot of destruction. So perhaps they're trying to push a kind of young earth creationist kind of view.

Hmm. Or, or a pre-civilization civilization civilization. I mean, this, this, this kind of stuff is like Gaia shit. Like, like root races. Yeah, yeah, we are getting into some theosophical kind of nonsense at the same time. So, Plus Alter also says that we're returning to space. We can build a space elevator, Anon, Orbital Ring, proposed by Paul Birch. Cheap access to space solves many economic problems, pay off the national debt with a few

asteroid mining missions, space-based solar power for far less than the cost of fossil fuels. Protection against ICBM launches, a return of hope, and a mission to redirect young people's attention onto. That seems cool. Yeah, yeah, you know, this is a very optimistic kind of thing. So from this post, you might get the idea that Plus Ultra has a very positive view of what the future holds. But this particular non also speculated that we're facing destruction from weapons of mass destruction. And Plus Ultra said this.

Right now, we assess a near certainty that Russia will deploy nuclear weapons against the U.S. in the near future. I do not have information to share on how many payload, targets, dates, etc. And maybe one or two rogue military bases get wiped out, or entire cities like D.E. and New York, or something a lot worse. There are maps that estimate where the safer places are, consult those maps, and consult God for guidance. Nuclear weapons could get deployed in the conflict surrounding secession, but we are mostly concerned about a Russian action.

Now, it gets worse because, according to Plus Ultra, a race war is actually going to start soon. Oh, sure. Yeah. Why not? Great. Wow. So they're just really putting a lot of stuff on...

This is kind of like early, early Chan sort of, or, you know, the race war and, you know, the nuclear, you know, the nuclear fallout is coming. I mean, this is a little bit more traditional, I would say. Like, like, kind of towards like a John Titer sort of thing where there's like, you're just telling like a big, big story. Yes, yes, 100%. Okay, so they say, we don't support racial violence, but we believe others are going to start a race war pretty soon. May not break out everywhere, but it's going to be bad in a lot of big cities. Supreme Court actions will contribute, but the main factor will be one of the Trump kids winning the election.

Of everything that he said, the idea that the nation would decide to elect any of the Trump children is probably the most ridiculous. Yeah, I know. Listen, they just don't have it. I really feel like Donald Trump is a singular character in his ability to plow through the political system the way that he did. But yeah, so like I said, so far this Insider Nod has only done two threads. I don't think has that Q magic.

My prediction is that even if this Anon decides to continue posting, it will fade into obscurity like a many, many that have come before it. But I just thought it was interesting that this particular, I guess, practice and tradition of Insider Anon LARPers pretending to dish out secret information and all the 4chan anons playing along is still happening even to this day. Allie, where can people find your additional work, your musings? Would you like people to find you? You can find me on Twitter at Pinael Decalcify.

I don't post that much. Usually it'll be about Chicago or something like that. Yes, and if you, yes, if you'd like to politely harass, Ali, you can follow her there. Thank you so much for your explaining to me. You know, I wouldn't call myself a dumb guy, but when it comes to you. to legal jargon and, you know, very specific clauses, you know, within the fabric of the legal documents, you know, I really appreciate you explaining it to us in a way that makes sense. And now I don't have to sound so stupid in real-world conversations about Trump's impending, impending trial.

Well, you're welcome, Jake. Thanks for having me on. Yes, thank you so much. Thanks for listening to another episode of the QAnonanonymous podcast. You can go to patreon.com slash QAnonanonymous and subscribe for $5.5. month to get a whole second episode every single week, plus access to our archive of premium episodes. And if you are already a subscriber, thank you so much. It helps us stay advertising free and editorially independent. For everything else, we have a website, QAnonanonanonymous.com.

Listener, until next week, may the deep dish bless you and keep you. It's not a conspiracy. It's fact. And now, today's auto queue. But if you want to get out there, get out. One thing with me, the nice part, I went to through it. Now they say I'm immune. I can feel, I feel so powerful. I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there. I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and everybody. I'll just give you a big fat kiss. No, but there is something nice. I don't have to be locked up in my basement and I wouldn't allow that to happen anyway.