Richard Luthmann, Investigative Reporter and Writer for this media outlet, has received a “Red Check” from Truth Social, the social media platform founded by former U.S. President Donald J. Trump.
In this feature, we spoke with him about his new life as a journalist and his old “lives” as a lawyer and a resident of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
What does a red check next to a users profile mean?
A red check on Truth Social lets users know that an account of public interest is genuine and not an imposter, impersonation, or parody. Red checks are reserved for well known, highly searched notable accounts in the following catagories:
Government
Brands, companies
Journalists
Sports (including esports)
Entertainment
Luthmann is thrilled that his reporting is receiving traction.
“I transitioned to journalism three years ago, and with my background, I believe I have something important to say. However, I’ve received nothing but static from the Mainstream Media, Big Tech, and the Government,” Luthmann said.
He believes that Truth Social’s recognition of his recent work will allow a broader audience to hear his reporting and commentary.
“I am white and male. I’m a practicing Roman Catholic and a Knight of Columbus. And Rogue Democrat Party prosecutors tagged me as a felon for my political antics - well before the J6 folks. In this ‘Brave New World’ where Uni-Party Politics, Big Tech, and Mainstream Media form a consolidated oligopoly, my voice is effectively canceled before I even speak,” Luthmann said.
This changed last week once Luthmann’s work caught Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes’ eye.
A Random Break
Journalist Richard Luthmann caught the eye of Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes after Media Personality John Tabacco Re-Truthed an excerpt of a recent article.
Luthmann compares the current “Never-Trumpers”-led market assault, condoned by the present U.S. political and governmental establishment, to the conditions in the 1930s Weimar Republic. And he backs it up:
The "Never Trumpers" making a deal with Democrat Elites to destroy Trump should heed history's lesson. The German elites who allied with the Nazis to forestall the left's advance ended up losing everything when the Nazis nationalized much of what they held. A similar fate awaits the "Never Trumpers." Once the MAGA carcass is devoured, the Democrat-Fascist beast will turn to find its next meal - them. The unchecked appetites of a maddened State are insatiable. Once the American Republic is dead, no one is safe.
Ronald Reagan spoke of an American "rendezvous with destiny." Until recently, our American Republic was "the last best hope of man on earth." Is that still true?
Have we failed the "last great experiment for promoting human happiness" our ancestors gave us as our birthright? With the weaponization of justice, the erosion of secure property rights, and the politicization of market regulation, have we taken "the first step into a thousand years of darkness?"
I believe we have. Given recent events, it is hard to reason otherwise. I hope and pray that I am wrong. Nonetheless, I am soon expecting to witness our century's Reichstag Fire.
The post caught the eye of Luthmann’s long-time friend, John Tabacco, a national media personality. Tabacco was formerly the New York Reform Party Vice Chairman, while Luthmann was legal counsel. Tabacco Re-Truthed the story and video, and Devin Nunes saw it. The rest, as they say, is history.
“I have tried to establish my bona fides as a journalist through all the channels. I write for various established outlets, am a member of the National Writers Union, and have a Verified Muck Rack profile. However, becoming recognized by Big Tech proved to be an exercise in futility,” Luthmann said. “You would think with a union card, the Left wouldn’t turn you away. Think again.”
Luthmann says that a single Devin Nunes ‘follow’ has done loads for his credibility.
This is For Real? is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“You have a former member of Congress and current CEO of a global media company with millions of followers. He can only follow a handful of voices - all of them important. I am beyond gratitude that Devin Nunes has honored me as a reader and that seemingly small ‘follow’ is having YUGE ramifications,” Luthmann said (specifically directing the word ‘YUGE’ to be spelled with a ‘Y.”)
Luthmann writes about what he sees: Trouble in America. Whether in the arena of law, politics, justice, family courts, prisons, capital markets, or mainstream media, corruption has set in at unprecedented levels.
Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan met in Anchorage, Alaska, on May 2, 1984.
“This isn’t the America I grew up in. This isn’t the American Promise of Liberty I witnessed time and time again as a schoolboy, reinforced when a Pope and American President united to tear down the Iron Curtain and free the oppressed from the yoke of the mass-murdering Godless,” Luthmann said. “Today, the enemy is within the gates, and if we do nothing, we are all dead - politically, socially, and spiritually.”
Committed now to being an interesting voice with an expanding reach, Luthmann is trying to test F. Scott Fitzgerald's famous quip, "There are no second acts in American lives."
The Luthmann Prologue
Richard Luthmann appeared on the cover of the NY Post on August 9, 2015. CREDIT: NYP Holdings, Inc.
Luthmann has a colorful backstory. Almost a decade ago, he was not just any New York lawyer. He was the Law Chair for the State Reform Party, a ballot-access line, and a larger-than-life character. A Columbia University graduate in Philosophy and then an attorney, he represented larger-than-life characters and engaged in political operations. At the height of the HBO series’ popularity in August 2015, Luthmann challenged a court litigant to a duel to the death, earning him the moniker the “Game of Thrones Lawyer” and the front page of the New York Post.
His fall was as remarkable as his rise. Luthmann, maintaining his innocence, says the New York Democratic Party machine did him dirty for various reasons. Ultimately, Luthmann was indicted, branded a convicted felon, and served four years in Federal Prison for various state and federal charges, all non-violent claims. One of the charges was “Falsification of Business Records.” Luthmann claims his 2018 prosecution was Alvin Bragg’s “blueprint” for the Trump prosecution.
In 2021, upon his release from Federal Prison, he began his media foray as a “satirist” and wrote about criminal justice and prison issues with which he had become intimately familiar. Last year, he self-described his background in a letter to Hunter Biden’s lawyers soliciting a gig for “prison consultant services” for the First Son.
“Allow me to elaborate on my background and qualifications. As you may be aware, I am not just any former attorney. I am the “Game of Thrones Lawyer” who challenged an adversary to “Trial By Combat" (Rudy Giuliani stole my line on January 6) to resolve a New York State Supreme Court case. Subsequently, I was incarcerated for heinous political crimes against Hillary Clinton and others. I had the temerity to defend a client for “weaponizing” speech. “BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST!” he said. That was days before the 2016 election. After that, I was whisked away to Federal Prison.
I was a resident of the Federal Government for forty-eight months. As the founder of the "Brooklyn MDC Law Offices," I gained invaluable experience as a "Jailhouse Lawyer" and navigated the complex dynamics within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
While incarcerated, I partnered with a reformed Russian mob enforcer to establish an effective legal defense operation for fellow inmates. Our collaboration allowed us to provide legal services and obtain personal protection, assisting individuals affiliated with various prison gangs, including the Bloods and La Cosa Nostra.”
Talk to him today. Luthmann doesn’t downplay his past, but he doesn’t glorify it either. His tenor can most aptly be described as reflective. He opened up on how journalism, or “storytelling that happens to be true,” came on his radar as a new career post-pokie.
“New York Magazine did a hit piece on me right before I got out of federal prison. The reporter said I was a ‘good sport.’ He was very selective in what he heard. I told him I modeled some of my political activities on social media off a 2011 Obama Administration-era U.S. intelligence program reported in the Guardian in 2015. Not a lick of that was in the article,” he said.
“Hillary didn’t like me, and neither did a slew of others. And I was a real dick. I’ll admit that. I made Fake Facebook pages lampooning politicians in their political capacity. What I did was 100% legally permissible and First Amendment-protected activity. Why? Because the US Government engaged in the activity under Obama and hasn’t stopped. The Guardian reported the whole thing in 2011:
I modeled my political operation off of a US Government operation. If I am a criminal and a crook, so are they. And I won’t stop pushing with “force” on this point.
Luthmann (who represented a state political party) points to a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court Election Law case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Dreihaus, and TIME Magazine’s commentary. On the docket was whether alleged lies could be preliminarily restrained in a congressional race. The lower courts found a political advertisement in a heavily pro-life district claiming a Congressman voted for a healthcare overhaul bill - and, by extension, taxpayer-funded abortion - was factually incorrect. Thus, the courts said SBA List’s political speech had no First Amendment concerns.
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Clarence Thomas announced a credible threat of constitutional harm in the form of a burden imposed on electoral speech. The Court reasoned that SBA List was being forced, even if they ultimately prevailed, to divert significant time and resources to hire legal counsel and respond to discovery requests in the crucial days before an election.
“For the Supreme Court, even political speech that may be false falls under the ambit of the First Amendment,” Luthmann said. “The most telling commentary came from TIME's Washington bureau chief, Massimo Calabresi. He put it better better than I could have at the time.”
“Politics has always been essentially inseparable from lies — everyone from Plato and Machiavelli to Leo Strauss and Hannah Arendt have defended the value of lying in politics.” - Massimo Calabresi, TIME Washington Bureau Chief on the 2014 SCOTUS Case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Dreihaus.
NY Magazine chose to seize upon Luthmann’s limited acquaintance with Trump's political advisor, Roger Stone. The article detailed how Stone recommended Luthmann to Mark Gallagher, a Trump supporter who, days before the 2016 election, was physically “manhandled and removed” by “Alec Baldwin’s Goon Squad” from the NBC Today show audience at 30 Rock for wearing a T-shirt with the word RAPE above a picture of Bill Clinton. The legal complaint Luthmann drafted as a lawyer contains the phrase “BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST” eight times in eighteen pages.
A black man wears a Roger Stone-designed Bill Clinton “RAPE” t-shirt to a 2016 Hillary Clinton rally.
The NY Magazine Article said:
“The stunt had been orchestrated by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, according to Gallagher, but Stone was promoting his book The Clintons’ War on Women at the time. Luthmann agreed to represent Gallagher and promptly filed a $53 million lawsuit against NBC. The complaint compared NBC security to Hitler’s SS, and Luthmann promoted the case on Jones’s Infowars website. “I’m a Trump supporter and NBC’s ‘goon squad’ beat me up,” read the Post’s headline this time. (The case went nowhere.)”
“The case went nowhere because the Clintons, among others, had me thrown in jail for political payback - plain and simple,” Luthmann said. Some may question whether the punishment was earned or outlandish. Luthmann says seven years have brought about nearly universal clarity.
Luthmann says he was acquainted with Stone but that Gallagher’s legal case had independent merit.
“The case wasn’t disposed of until September of last year, and there was significant infliction of emotional distress. I don’t know because I’m not in the loop, but it looks like [Mark] Gallagher got paid because the NBC defendants agreed to discontinue the case. I don’t know what kind of reporter can say in April 2021 that ‘the case went nowhere.’ It’s good to see NY Magazine has clairvoyants on their staff. Maybe they should have used their powers to find the crack residue between Hunter Biden’s laptop keys,” Luthmann said.
Loading...
Dirty Feds
Luthmann says the federal case against him was a political hit job. He claims his innocence but points to the fact that even Trump, with his resources, could not get a New York jury to see reason.
“From the beginning, I said the whole case was pure bullshit and manufactured. But when they want you, they’ll get you, and there’s nothing you can do. The head prosecutrix was a vicious narcissist with a career trajectory and fleeting connection to the truth. She left the US Attorney’s Office for the EDNY shortly before my sentencing. In her first private practice case, she sued Donald Trump. It shows you the ideological sesspool when facing that prosecutorial office,” Luthmann said.
Arthur Aidala [R] represented many notorious criminal defendants, including Abe Hirschfeld, Harvey Weinstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Richard Luthmann [L].
The facts tend to show that Luthmann has a point. According to a NY Post report, the late great Judge Jack B. Weinstein practically laughed former federal Prosecutor Moria Kim Penza out of the courtroom when she claimed Luthmann was a “mob lawyer” who tried to have Democrat operatives “whacked” but couldn't name the mafia family he was connected to.
“They just lied. I was connected to a fork. But, the damage was done. Even though that day was a qualified ‘win,’ I was miffed at my lawyer, Arthur Aidala, when he started on a tirade about the ‘Great FBI.’ I said the Feds were dirty from jump. Everyone was in disbelief that these things could happen in ‘our’ justice system, and they thought I was the crazy one. They even sent me for a mental evaluation to seal the deal,” Luthmann said.
Is Luthmann crazy? Judge Weinstein remanded him after a ‘crazy’ letter he wrote - to his ex-wife, who was divorcing him AND cooperating with the Feds to put him in prison for a long time. He quoted another letter from the Game of Thrones, and Weinstein thought he was dangerous.
“The real ‘dangerous’ part of that letter was my commentary on Michael Cohen and the quotes from Alan Dershowitz and Donald Trump showing that the attorney-client privilege was dead in America if the Feds wanted you. They whistled past that graveyard and the fact that Weinstein, an LBJ appointee, was in compos mentis at that point in his judicial career,” Luthmann said.
If his ideas were conspiracy theories in 2017, he says they’ve come true today. For better or worse, Luthmann says that after the Trump “show trial,” many have seen the light of what he knew a decade ago. For him, the situation came into focus when he met a decorated retired FBI Special Agent named J. Gary DiLaura a few years ago. DiLaura has been a vocal critic of the FBI for the past two decades - since 9/11 derailed the law enforcement agency, in his opinion.
Remember what made the FBI the best law enforcement Agency in the world…Crime Fighting…period! But they, Mueller and then Comey, did NOT return to fighting crime. Comey turned the FBI into his OWN little enforcement army …doing only what HE wanted and not what the FBI should do…fight Crimes here in the US and do it with Fidelity, Bravery Integrity! - J. Gary DiLaura, FBI Special Agent (Ret.)
“Gary taught me that too many coincidences make a fact. Look at recent events aside from the Trump ‘banana republic’ trials by Democrat prosecutors. There were the J6 show trials where what looked closer to goofballs parading around a bank lobby than an insurrection was met with federal felonies, some carrying as much as 20 years. The only person who died that day was Ashley Babbit, and yet when illegals in ‘progressive’ cities kill, they get less prison time than for a grandma convicted of ‘loitering’ and ‘parading,’ ” Luthmann said.
FBI Special Agent J. Gary DiLaura (Ret.)
Luthmann says DiLaura is on point about James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok. There has been no shortage of questionable FBI characters over the past two decades. But Luthmann doesn't pull punches when he says the entire DOJ is broken.
“Who pleads to a twenty-year sentence to cover up a few hours of gay sex with Paul Pelosi? If you’re going to do decades, you might as well get on the stand and tell the world every sordid detail. Anyone with a brain knows that the American Criminal Justice System is an arm of the leftist ruling elite hell-bent on a Godless, totalitarian state. The only chance we have is Trump and the appointment of a real hard-ass like Gary [DiLaura] to clean house in Quantico,” Luthmann said.
Luthmann says some may find his past entertaining and interesting, but his focus is on the future. He says he had years to reflect, plan, read, strategize, and, importantly, learn patience. He says his time in prison, after almost seven years, has fundamentally changed him to the core.
“The late philosopher Derek Parfit had a famous argument about personhood and identity. After seven years, every cell in our entire body has been replaced. Materially, we are different. Our idea of a continuity of identity - what he calls a ‘Cartesian Ego’ - is worth examining. For Parfit, identity is only meaningful when it concerns two or more points in time. And the person I was on December 15, 2017, is a very different person than I am today. In many ways, they made me because where I was previously distracted, I can now see them for what they truly are,” Luthmann said.
Luthmann then quoted Roger Stone quoting William Shakespeare - “What's past is prologue.” He is convinced we are a civilization in distress and on the brink. Luthmann then explained why Donald Trump is not a felon under the U.S. Constitution—and why he isn’t either.
Collateral Consequences of Felony Conviction
One of the hot issues recently discussed by cable news talking heads is the new slew of restrictions placed upon Donald Trump following his conviction as a felon in the New York Falsification of Business Records case. These legal and regulatory restrictions limit or prohibit people convicted of crimes from accessing employment, business and occupational licensing, housing, voting, education, serving on juries, owning and using firearms, international travel, and other rights, benefits, and opportunities.
Some collateral consequences serve a legitimate public safety or regulatory function. For example, they keep firearms out of the hands of people convicted of violent offenses and prohibit people convicted of assault or physical abuse from working with children or the elderly. Others are directly related to a particular crime, such as registration requirements for sex offenders or driver’s license restrictions for people convicted of serious traffic offenses.
However, some collateral consequences apply without regard to the relationship between the crime and the opportunity being restricted. An example is the revocation of a business license after a felony conviction. Frequently, these consequences also apply without consideration of the time passed between the sentence and the opportunity being sought or the person’s rehabilitation efforts since the conviction.
Garland v. Range is a hot-button issue at the U.S. Supreme Court this term. It concerns whether the government has the authority to automatically strip non-violent felons of their right to bear arms.
Pennsylvania authorities convicted Bryan David Range nearly 30 years ago for making a false statement to obtain food stamps. He spent no time in prison. However, making false statements could have been punishable by up to five years imprisonment under the relevant Pennsylvania statute. Under §922(g)(1), the government stripped Range of his right to possess firearms because he faced more than one year in prison. He is forever ineligible to own a gun. Range first learned about this restriction when he attempted to purchase a deer-hunting rifle in 1998.
Range believes his Second Amendment right to bear arms is more powerful than the government’s ability to keep them from him. He sued Attorney General Merrick Garland. This issue focuses on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The law bars felons from owning guns. Penalties can range up to five years imprisonment.
The debate has split federal courts. The Third Circuit, covering New Jersey and Pennsylvania, ruled the ban unconstitutional for non-violent offenders. The St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit upheld it for all felons. Luthmann wrote a recent article about the Range case.
“If SCOTUS follows the law, there will be no more ‘felon in possession’ laws for non-violent felons. But asking American courts, even the High Court, to follow the law is a stretch nowadays,” Luthmann said.
Relying on a 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Luthmann believes that the government no longer has any basis to deny non-violent felons like him and Donald Trump the right to own and possess firearms. As Luthmann previously wrote:
Bruen [invalidated] a New York statute that allowed someone to carry a handgun in public for purposes of self-defense only if they could show a particular need for self-protection. Rejecting a standard approved by eleven federal courts of appeal because this standard permitted “judge-empowering interest-balancing,” Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion for the Court announced:
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, . . . [t]he government must . . . justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The government could satisfy this burden only by showing enough analogous historical regulations, and the Court said that legislation enacted after 1900 was too recent to count.
After reviewing dozens of English and American firearms restrictions between 1285 and 1901, the Court ruled that too few of them sufficiently resembled the New York statute to save it. Between 1607 and 1901, authorities flogged, branded, or imprisoned many thousands of Americans for serious crimes. After their punishment, they were allowed to possess and use firearms.
State and federal felon-in-possession laws fail the Bruen test more clearly than the statute struck down in Bruen. No historic analogs appear close enough to be acknowledged as “distinctly similar” and then dismissed as “outliers.”
Luthmann says because of Bruen, the New York “Falsification of Business Records” felony has limited application outside of New York if it is valid at all. He says that crime cannot be appropriately used as a predicate for collateral consequences of conviction outside of New York State for any purposes, including for the 922(g) felon possessing firearms law. He calls this legal theory the “Constitutional Felony Doctrine.”
The “Constitutional Felony” Doctrine
Chief Justice John Roberts, who President George W. Bush appointed, shares a moment with President Donald Trump at the 2020 State of the Union.
Luthmann says Trump should raise the issue that his conviction is legally null outside of New York State under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the U.S. Constitution. By doing so, he can challenge the legitimacy of the New York felony conviction and potentially set a precedent to invalidate similar "Frankenstein Felonies" across the country. The Supreme Court, known for its originalist leanings, might find the historical arguments compelling and use this case to limit the scope of modern felony definitions. This move could benefit Trump and reaffirm the Constitution's original intent regarding what constitutes a felony.
This "Constitutional Felony Doctrine" argues that modern “Frankenstein” felonies, cobbled together from misdemeanors and regulatory violations, lack historical basis. This doctrine is rooted in the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Tenth Amendment.
“Johnson v. Muelberger said long ago that the purpose of the full faith and credit clause makes SCOTUS, for both state and federal courts, the final arbiter when the question is raised about the clause’s permissible limitations. Trump should go to the High Court and make them say - using the Bruen historical analysis - that his Falsification of Business Records conviction has no legal effect outside New York State or with the Federal Government. He already has five votes because Roberts will probably side with the liberals,” Luthmann said.
Under New York law, the Falsification charges would have been misdemeanors standing alone. However, the DA elevated them to felony charges by claiming that the falsification was committed "with intent to commit another crime," involving federal election law and campaign finance violations. Crafted individually for Trump, these charges are unprecedented.
Luthmann might be on the something. Nothing in American Legal History supports the core character of Trump’s conviction as a felony crime for constitutional purposes. In Bruen, Justice Thomas emphasized the importance of historical evidence in interpreting constitutional texts. Applying this approach to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Tenth Amendment supports the Constitutional Felony Doctrine.
In 1769, William Blackstone defined a felony as an offense leading to total forfeiture of lands or goods and possibly capital punishment. Blackstone stated, "an offense which occasions a total forfeiture of either lands, or goods, or both, at the common law; and to which capital or other punishment may be superadded, according to the degree of guilt." Felonies included violent crimes such as murder and rape and nonviolent offenses like counterfeiting and embezzlement.
During the early Republic, American laws mirrored those of England. Felonies often led to severe punishments, including capital punishment and estate forfeiture. A 1788 New York law imposed the death penalty for counterfeiting, burglary, robbery, arson, and malicious wounding. Virginia's 1777 law required estate forfeiture and physical punishment for forgery. These laws reflected the serious nature of felonies at the time.
“If you presented the Trump ‘felony case’ to John Hancock, Nathan Hale, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams, they would probably laugh at you. Every one of them was technically a felon, convicted of treason against the crown. British soldiers hung Hale. They all have that felon tag in common with Trump - and the fact that they are patriots, every one,” Luthmann said.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures states recognize other states' public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. However, there are permissible limitations based on state policies.
“The Supreme Court is the ultimate decider on Full Faith and Credit. Additionally, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government, including the power to define their criminal law. However, these reserved rights must relate to felonies as understood at the time of the Tenth Amendment's ratification in 1791, and other states are free to codify what they will not accept. We could easily see a slew of red state legislatures condemn ‘Frankenstein felonies’ predicated on violations of Federal regulations. They would be well within their power to do so because no such felonies existed from the Framers,” Luthmann said.
The New York Falsification crimes are classic "Frankensteins." They lack historical roots and are not cognizable as felonies under the original understanding of the Constitution. Therefore, they do not require full faith and credit across states. District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s Office describes Trump’s crime as "commonplace." However, the charges against Trump are obscure and nearly unprecedented. The Manhattan DA rarely brings cases where falsification of business records is the only charge.
“This is Trump’s Supreme Court. Given the current composition, they may adopt a ‘Constitutional Felony Doctrine’ in some form. The conservative majority is willing to revisit and reinterpret constitutional provisions based on the original historical context. Given the Court's current composition, there's a real possibility they could adopt this doctrine to curtail the overreach of modern felony laws and the partisan Law-Fare we are seeing,” Luthmann said.
Takeaway
Luthmann continues to navigate his new life as a journalist. Now, turbocharged by Truth Social’s recognition, he focuses on exposing government and legal corruption.
“We have to stop the march towards death because that is the road we are on. Socialism is a road paved on the broken bones of untold tens of millions. I try to use my writing to wake the ‘un-woke.’ The grown-up ‘Garbage Pail Kids’ can’t be saved, but the rest of our country can if we activate,” Luthmann says.
The irony is not lost that Luthmann, such a voracious political animal, cannot himself vote. I asked him about that, and he gave an ominous response.
“The only vote that matters is the one this November. If it goes the wrong way, isn’t counted, or is stolen - again - then voting won’t matter because we won’t have a republic. Ben Franklin said we’d have ‘a republic if we can keep it.’ We’ll be the generation that pissed it all away.”
https://www.silive.com/crime-safety/2021/08/trial-by-combat-lawyer-richard-luthmann-released-from-federal-custody.html