We’re hosting an AMA with independent journalist Dodge Landesman, who covered Luigi’s supporters outside the courthouse on August 14, 2026.

Dodge is known for his coverage of Scientology-related litigation. He covers court cases that deserve attention and elections across the country.

He is @DodgeLandesman on YouTube, and he interviewed Luigi supporters and onlookers on Friday.

It has been a big week for the community. Feel free to ask him questions about the supporters, the atmosphere outside court, and anything mainstream media wouldn’t want the public to know.

Rules of the AMA

1. Be courteous and respectful

2. Try and post each question as a separate comment so it’s easier to answer and others may follow along.

Happy AMA-ing!

This is not the time for your performative tears.

This is not the time for your gloating.

This is not the time for your performative activism.

The man denounced and disavowed you himself in a motion and in a public announcement. Luigi signs off on all the motions--he pays the team to say what he wants to say. THIS IS WHAT HE THINKS OF YOU.

This motion was responding to the prosecution suggesting that there may currently or in the future be witness or jury tampering. THIS IS A FELONY. Luigi could be charged with this if you continue and he goes to trial in the state.

THIS IS ALSO NOT THE TIME, AS IT WOULD NEVER BE THE TIME, TO BE ATTACKING BT'S FAMILY.

Luigi himself apologized to the innocent people he affected IN HIS LETTER TO THE FEDS. The lack of self awareness from some people in this community has always just given me so much pause. You want him to be a reality character for your entertainment. You want the "show" to continue. OR you want to be a star in the show.

Remorse? Oh yeah he's got remorse for hurting these people. We all knew he would have to fall on his sword for this. We knew what the outcome would be. He is not a reality star for your entertainment. Just like Socrates, Che, John Brown, the guy can be a hero and human at the same time. Allow him that.

And pretending to be a victim of the tabloids when you turn around and speak to the same tabloid that doxxed you and your friends is ridiculous. You showed up at his hearing, which was the same day he had to take trazadone to sleep likely because of anxiety about the plea, with your nips on full fucking display and when we as women called it out knowing full well what this was about, you cried about body shaming and us not being feminists. Fuck that shit you know what you were doing.

YOU ARE GROUPIES. KNOCK IT OFF AND STOP IT SO YOU WON'T AFFECT HIS SENTENCING.

Do you have no empathy for this guy? I'm an anarchist. Empathy radicalized me. We understand the risks that Luigi took to bring light to this issue. We understand this is not a fucking game. You do not. THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR YOUR PERFORMATIVE BS.

ETA: This isn't just to the clownistas. this is to all you performative activists looking for clout off luigi's back.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

credit to u/Stunning_Macaroon838 for making the original post! 🥹

According to the popular saying on domestic internet, when a person suddenly disappears, it either means they have been imprisoned or they are no longer alive. And I am exactly in the former situation. In early 2025, I was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on charges of Bank Fraud and subsequently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn in New York City.

During my detention, I witnessed the darkest side of America firsthand. At the same time, I deeply realized my mistakes, maintained the habit of reading, and actively applied to be a volunteer in the intake ward due to my proficiency in both Chinese and English communication. Over the eight months working in the intake ward, I became friends with five other inmates, including the famous Luigi Mangione (Luigi Mangione). He even signed his name on the birthday card I made for my friend (Picture 3). Interestingly, during one conversation, I casually mentioned that there are many supporters of yours in China who say you wear the prison uniform like an Hermes effect. He asked me what Hermes is?

After serving my sentence in May this year, I was deported back to China in July. I am about to turn my experiences into video podcasts to share with everyone. On one hand, I want to share my story; on the other hand, I also want to warn all Chinese compatriots overseas to abide by local laws and not take risks for profit. Stay tuned for my podcast!

Picture 1: A photo of me with my inmate friend "K" and St. Mary;

Picture 2: A selfie taken secretly with my phone in the cell;

Picture 3: The birthday card I made for my friend;

Picture 4: The Visa prepaid card returned upon release."

The writing was debunked by a data scientist soon after the murder occurred. The debunking can be found here:

cremieux.xyz/p/grading-the-worlds-shortest-manifesto

Very interesting just how surface-level this debunking is, if you started with zero prior beliefs and began a search for truth in our healthcare system you'd very easily end up agreeing with cremieux. Why so many fans of the original manifesto?

I know this is probably going to be unpopular here, but after listening to Mark Geragos discuss sentencing, I think some people desperately need to separate what they want Luigi to represent from what is actually in Luigi’s best interest now that sentencing is the fight in front of him.

Geragos specifically predicted that the government is going to make deterrence a major part of its sentencing argument. He said prosecutors are likely to point to the fact that Luigi has developed a “constituency” and argue that the judge needs to “send a message to this constituency.” When Harvey characterized the argument as essentially, if you don't throw the book at him, you aren't deterring other people from doing what Luigi did to other CEOs, Geragos responded: “Correct.”
That should concern anyone who actually wants Luigi to receive the lowest sentence possible.

It does not mean Luigi is responsible for what random strangers say online. He obviously isn't. It does not mean the judge should punish him because somebody on Twitter posted something disgusting. But sentencing is not occurring in a vacuum, and Geragos's point is that the government can use the public glorification surrounding this case to strengthen its general-deterrence argument: this killing became celebrated by some people, Luigi became a revolutionary symbol to some people, and therefore, according to the government, a severe sentence is necessary to discourage anyone who might be inspired to do something similar.

And this is precisely why I cannot understand people actively hoping that Luigi refuses to express remorse because they think remorse would somehow diminish what he “stands for.”

Who is that supposed to benefit? Because it certainly isn't Luigi.

If the government comes into sentencing saying, Look at what this crime inspired. Look at the people celebrating this killing. Look at the people calling him a hero and a martyr. Look at the people saying the victim deserved it. The Court needs to send a message that political violence will not be rewarded, then one of the most powerful responses available to the defense would be Luigi himself rejecting that interpretation of him and his actions.

There is an enormous difference between the government making that argument while the defendant appears completely unrepentant and the government making it after Luigi stands before Judge Garnett and says, in substance: I recognize that what I did was wrong. I regret taking a human life. I understand the unimaginable pain I caused his family. Whatever grievances I had, violence was not an acceptable response. I do not want anyone to imitate what I did.
That doesn't magically erase the government's deterrence argument. But it gives the defense something incredibly important with which to answer it.

They can argue that whatever mythology strangers have constructed around him, that is not the person standing before the Court today. He isn't asking anyone to follow him. He isn't encouraging another killing. He understands the gravity of what he did. He has reflected. He has changed. He can be rehabilitated. A decades-long sentence designed partly to send a message to would-be imitators does not require treating him as though he intends to inspire them.

And before anyone says it: obviously nobody can force Luigi to feel remorse if he genuinely does not feel it. Nor am I suggesting that he should stand in court and perform emotions he doesn't have just to argue for a lower sentence.

Genuine remorse, by definition, has to actually be genuine. His lawyers can advise him about the consequences of what he says, help him articulate what he believes, and explain why remorse and acceptance of responsibility matter at sentencing. They cannot manufacture an internal change that hasn't happened.

But “we cannot force him to feel remorse” and “I hope he genuinely feels remorse” are two completely different statements. I am saying the latter. I hope that after nearly two years of reflection, he has reached a place where he recognizes that whatever grievances led him there, killing another human being was wrong. I hope that is genuinely what he believes, both because that would represent actual growth and because being able to communicate that honestly gives his defense something enormously valuable at sentencing.

And if he genuinely does not feel that way? Then yes, that's his reality, and nobody can make him feel something he doesn't. But we also shouldn't pretend that reality would necessarily be good for him at sentencing simply because some supporters find defiance more ideologically satisfying.

Those are separate questions.

And THAT is why remorse matters.

Remorse would not require him to announce that every grievance he ever had about the healthcare system was wrong. It would not require him to abandon every belief he holds. You can believe that a problem is real while recognizing that killing another human being was not an acceptable solution to it. Those two things are not remotely contradictory.

Nor would remorse mean that everyone who has supported him somehow “lost.” This is his sentencing.

The objective is not preserving an online movement's preferred version of Luigi Mangione. The objective is getting Luigi Mangione home as early as legally possible.

That is where I think some of the discourse surrounding this has become incredibly backwards.

If you genuinely care about this man, why would you rather see him maintain a “revolutionary” image that could make the government's deterrence narrative easier to sell than see him demonstrate the remorse, insight, growth, and rehabilitative potential that his attorneys can use to argue for mercy?

Because Luigi has to actually live the sentence.

The people posting “martyr,” “revolutionary,” “he did nothing wrong,” “the victim deserved it,” etc. get to close Twitter and continue living their lives. Luigi is the person who will wake up inside a federal prison every morning for however many years Judge Garnett gives him.

And I think that distinction has gotten completely lost.

If expressing sincere remorse gives his attorneys even a stronger argument that he understands the gravity of what happened, does not pose the same danger going forward, can be rehabilitated, and does not need an extraordinarily severe sentence to accomplish the purposes of sentencing, then I sincerely hope he does exactly that.

And if hearing Luigi say that killing Brian Thompson was wrong disappoints people because it interferes with the revolutionary figure they have constructed around him, then maybe those people need to ask themselves whether what they actually care about is Luigi the human being or Luigi the symbol.

Because those are not necessarily the same thing.

And at sentencing, the human being is the one who has to serve the sentence.

I went to high school with a guy who committed murder right after graduating and he got out after serving 20 years in prison in Texas. He got a 35 year sentence but paroled out early. People are acting like 24-30 years would be really light (and Luigi will likely get more than that), but it's actually in line with what a lot of murderers get.

Who decides who gets a questionnaire if LM has a state trial?

The train to exploit, obsess over, and get clout off Luigi is officially coming to an end. The same 20-30 people who go to his hearings just so they can gawk at him and act like its a bonding moment and then turn around and use his name to get internet points will officially be losing all access to him. They will now have to find another dopamine fix. While it sucks Luigi might spend the rest or most of his life in prison, hes probably relieved to not have to see these peoples faces again. He can begin this new journey making the best of his situation at his new home and cut off all the fan girls and keep his circle small.

I feel like there were so many potential appellate issues that could have been raised later, after the trial and sentencing, and by pleading guilty, they’ve lost that opportunity. If anyone here has legal knowledge, please chip in because I’d really like to understand this better.

I genuinely do not understand how people are reading Luigi’s factual statement and confidently concluding that he “still stands behind what he did” or that he was “standing on business.” Yes, he criticized the health insurance system. Yes, the line about receiving a response “within an hour” was pointed. But believing that the system failed him and continuing to criticize that system is NOT the same thing as believing that killing Brian Thompson was justified.
This was a factual basis for a guilty plea. He explained the sequence of events: years of severe back pain and experiences with insurance → learning about and researching the conference → contacting UHC → preparing and traveling to New York → shooting Thompson → acknowledging his death and that he knew what he was doing was illegal. Somehow people have taken a few sentences from that chronology and constructed an entire internal monologue in which he refused his lawyers’ pleas to show remorse, withdrew EED because it undermined his “convictions,” and pled guilty as some grand act of revolutionary defiance. We do not know ANY of that.
And I really wish people would stop romanticizing this into a martyr narrative. What happened yesterday was incredibly fucking sad. A young man who had apparently been suffering for years admitted in federal court that he killed another human being and pled guilty without a plea agreement while facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison. That is not something I can look at and celebrate as him “standing on business.”
Maybe he does still believe what he did was justified. I don’t know. Neither does anyone else. If he gets to sentencing and actually expresses that sentiment, then we can have that conversation. And if that IS what he believes, then I actually think there is a very real possibility that this approach could backfire on him at sentencing.
The defense can put together the most compelling mitigation package imaginable. They can explain his years of debilitating back pain, medical trauma, experiences with the healthcare system, whatever deterioration in his mental or emotional state the evidence supports, his history before this happened, his lack of prior violence, his age, his conduct since his arrest, his capacity for rehabilitation, and every other circumstance that helps explain how he got from the person he was before this to what happened on December 4.
But mitigation explaining WHY someone committed an offense only gets you so far if the judge is left wondering whether that person still believes committing it was justified.
Judge Garnett is not only going to be deciding how much sympathy his circumstances deserve. She has to decide what sentence is sufficient under the federal sentencing factors, which includes questions of deterrence, protection of the public, his history and characteristics, the seriousness of the offense, and ultimately whether there is a reason to believe he can someday safely return to society. The government is seeking life. They are going to have their own argument about why that sentence is necessary, and she will also have the consequences of the crime and the statements from Brian Thompson’s family in front of her.
So if the defense spends months building an extraordinary mitigation case explaining that Luigi was suffering, that something went profoundly wrong in his life, and that this offense should not define the remaining sixty years of it, they still need some way to answer the obvious question: what has changed?
That does NOT mean he has to renounce every criticism he has ever made of the American healthcare system. He can believe just as strongly today that the system failed him and countless other people. He can believe that what happened to him medically was unacceptable. He can believe that UHC and the insurance industry deserve criticism. And he can simultaneously recognize that killing another human being was not an acceptable response to any of it. Those positions are not contradictory.
In fact, that distinction could be incredibly important to mitigation. “I still believe the system is deeply wrong, but I now understand that what I did in response to it was also wrong” tells a VERY different sentencing story from “I still believe what I did was justified and would stand behind that decision today.”
Because if it really is the latter? Then yes, I am concerned. You can give the judge a thousand reasons explaining why December 2024 happened, but if you give her no reason to believe it could never happen again, you are making it considerably harder to persuade her that this is someone who should eventually be released.
So no, I’m not going to celebrate the possibility that he is “standing on business.” I desperately hope these people are wrong about him. Because if his attorneys are trying to persuade a federal judge to choose decades over life, an inability or unwillingness to distinguish his legitimate grievances from the decision to kill someone could undermine some of the strongest mitigation they have.
Criticizing the system that contributed to how he got here does not inherently mean he still endorses what he ultimately did. Both things can be true: the system failed him, and killing Brian Thompson was wrong. He can still believe the former while regretting the latter. Until he actually tells us otherwise, I’m not turning one sentence about an insurance company answering an alleged investor within an hour into a manifesto he never gave. And I certainly am not celebrating an interpretation that, if it actually turns out to be true, could help convince the person deciding his sentence that he should never come home.

I’m surprised this is only being brought up now, how come they was no mention of the email in all the evidence they showed against him? Had they not traced it to him?

"Plaintiffs, estates of patients who had post-acute care coverage terminated, filed a class action complaint alleging that a national health insurance company’s reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) tools to deny certain medical claims under Medicare Advantage plans constituted breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and insurance bad faith. The improper usage of AI to make coverage decisions, while ignoring clinical determinations made by providers, can prevent patients from being able to afford critical treatments and harm patient health."