Nope, actually implausible deniability. Let me try to reword it more clearly for morons, but it's rather difficult for me to get down to their level:
If meadefreling is actually doing what they said in their guide, the government, which prosecutes over victimless crimes more than actual crimes with victims like credit/debit card fraud, etc., may choose to prosecute meadefreling not because it feels in any way morally/ethically/legally obligated to, but because it decided to take a break from fucking the civil liberties of victimless aka non-actual criminals, into oblivion.
When you are quoted in an indictment/information actually or effectively saying that you were almost certain that what you were doing was criminal, that establishes probable cause.
If you or your lawyer actually or effectively says to a judge/jury that you were almost certain that what you were doing was criminal, that eliminates reasonable doubt. If you or your lawyer try to claim you actually thought otherwise, your previous inconsistent statement will be used for impeachment.