Putin failed us not. He lived up to expectations. He killed Yevgeny Prigozhin. Waited two months. Fooled the man. Did him in in a plane crash yesterday.

Trump an admirer of Putin. His friend. The Saudis are Trump’s friends also. Trump has an affinity for killers. Dictators kill those who oppose them. Trump wants to be our dictator. He has already advised that should he be elected Presidnet again, all final decisions would be made by him. He would place himself over Congress, Agencies and the Supreme Court.

Americans would be crazy to elect him again. He has done enough damage to our country. Were Trump to be reelected, the U.S. would be in the same position Germany was in the mid 1930’s when Hitler took power.

Do we want that? No way, Jose!

The Republican debate last night was unimpressive. 

After listening to the political pundits last night following the debate and some of the talk show guests this morning, my “favorites” were rarely mentioned. Apparently I stand alone in my favorable impression of them. I refer to Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum. Each stood at opposite ends of the stage. Each spoke wisely and intelligently the few times they had an opportunity to participate.

Mike Pence distinguished himself. Surprisingly so. Don’t count him out. Chris Christie impressive as expected.

Haley sounded good. Not to my liking, however. I thought she came across like a political hack. DeSantis blew it. His responses and expressions well rehearsed. However no one went after him. He got a free ride in effect. First time I heard Ramaswamy. He blew it also. He has taken on the cloak of a conspiratorial theorist. He was arrogant, a bully. Not his time. He needs maturing.

A long way to go yet.

I have been writing this blog for 17 years. The one and only time I questioned whether I should publish one of my blogs was the one published August 18th: Some Believe Trump Already Disqualified From Holding Public Office. It concerned Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Referred to as the Disqualification Clause.

My reluctance was based on the fact that no one was talking about it. How could I be so smart? I had read The Hill article and the law review article. I held it a day before publishing based on a fear I was wrong. Then I said, What the hell! I know what I read. I can’t be that stupid.

I was watching Deadline White House with Nicole Wallace on MSNBC at 5 yesterday. Lo and behold, Wallace did 20 minutes on Section Three. She even had retired respected Federal Judge J. Michael Luttig on. I had suggested Judge Luttig should be asked for his opinion.

Excited I was! Section Three was important. A definite matter of interest.

I am adding on to this blog the entirety of my 8/18 blog for your perusal.


A different approach prohibiting Trump from becoming President again made the print this past week. It took form in an article in The Hill which reviewed a recent law review article involving disqualification in holding public office.

My blog today covers both The Hill article and law review article. The Hill presentation so well done that most of my blog is a plagarization of it. 

The Hill published the article yesterday. Titled: The Constitution Bars Trump From Holding Public Office Ever Again. Its author in an Opinion piece by Donald K. Sherman relied strongly on a law review article published in the University of Pennsylvania Law review, vol. 172, 8/14/23, titled: The Sweep and Force of Section Three. It was authored by two law professors: William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas. Both are members of the conservative Federalist Society, which gives credence to the law review article.

A law review is a scholarly law journal that focuses on legal issues. A type of legal periodical. Each article deeply researched. A law review also provides a scholarly analysis of emerging concepts involving various topics. Lengthy, comprehensive subjects are generally written by law professors, judges and legal practitioners. Short articles, commonly referred to as “notes” or “comments,” by top law students.

In The Sweep and Force of Section Three, the two law Professors claim Trump is already Constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment. The Section is known as the Disqualification Clause. The Disqualification Clause bars from office any government officer who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then engages in or aids an insurrection against the United States. A disability only a two thirds majority of both houses of Congress can act to remove.

As Professors Baude and Paulsen note, “Section Three requires no prior criminal law conviction, for treason or any other defined crime as a prerequisite for its disqualification to apply.”

Which means Trump is already disqualified without a guilty verdict forthcoming in any of the pending cases against him.

The provision is  “self-executing without the need for additional action by Congress.” The Professors note that Section Three “can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.”

The Professors further indicate that “the free speech principles of the 1st Amendment are superseded by Section Three.”

I’d like to hear what some other respected Constitutional scholars think about the application of the Disqualification Clause, including former Federal Judge and respected scholar J. Michael Luttig.

I find the Disqualification concept interesting. Whether applicable is for legal theorists with capacities far beyond mine.

Enjoyed dinner last night at Brady’s Irish Pub. Went specially for their wednesday special chicken parmigan. The best! Amazing how an Irish restaurant can cook such an excellent Italian dish. Their lasagna is equally good when they feature it.

Carola was bartending. She recently returned from a one month vacation in Ireland. She visits her father who lives there every other year. She stopped in London for 3 days. I had been to London on business. Loved the city. She had, also. We chatted about London.

Enjoy your day!


8 comments on “PUTIN THE KILLER

  1. All of this talk about how Trump “can” be disqualified from holding public office because of the provisions within the 14th amendment, is just that – talk.

    Like all the other pontifications of the Libertarian right wing, nothing ever comes of it. I remember everybody talking about the constitution not saying the president can’t be prosecuted while in office, and all kinds of other things, NONE of which anyone did anything about.

    Libertarians like to sit around and talk, but they don’t actually do anything, apart from shoot birds and fund men only parties.

    Call me when somebody actually files a suit on this subject.

  2. Who cares? These “debates,” particularly the Republican ones, are just a media circus, created to serve themselves and enrich news outlets.

    Let’s not forget that “experts” never found that Trump ever won ANY of the debates he participated in over the years. Yet he won the nominations each time.

    As long as we don’t hold politicians accountable political debates are nothing but theatre

  3. Who would have ever thought that we would have ANY politicians let alone REPUBLICAN politicians, and their president so friendly and supportive of Russians and their dictator?

    Never ever, ever, EVER thought I’d see that day.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *