WHAT IS TRUTH?: Can Trump be barred from running again?


We humans just wanna have fun: Can you remember Donald J. Trump?

In a way we find comical and relaxing, he hasn't just been removed from office by the tyranny of the passage of time. Thanks to actions by Facebook and Twitter, he's been effectively muzzled!

We've found that state of affairs relaxing and wonderfully comical. But, as has been widely reported, nothing gold can stay! 

We can't seem to leave well enough alone! In this morning's New York Times, a letter writer complains about the former commander's upcoming Senate trial:

LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (1/26/21): Once again, my beloved Democratic Party is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead of focusing on the important issues, like Covid and the economy, it chose to allow Donald Trump the chance to again gain the spotlight. For him, all publicity, good or bad, is good. He should have been able to slink away into an ignominious night, and the country could have had the great pleasure of no longer hearing his name in every newscast and publication.

The Democrats should have chosen to censure him in a bipartisan vote. Then he would have left his term in shame and President Biden would have had a less divided Congress to work with him on his appointments and proposals. Instead Mr. Trump will probably be acquitted by the Senate, and will claim a great victory, which could relaunch his political career, or at least further endear him to his base. What were the Democrats thinking?

We're inclined to agree with the letter writer. That said, what were (and are) the Democrats thinking? In this morning's Washington Post, a front-page report helps us know:

KIM ET AL (1/26/21): Democrats and some Republicans, such as Romney, have said they believe a former president can be impeached. But other GOP senators who were infuriated by Trump’s conduct but nonetheless do not feel compelled to convict a president who is no longer in office have suggested the move may not be constitutional.

“It makes no sense whatsoever that a president or any official could commit a heinous crime against our country and then defeat Congress’s impeachment powers by simply resigning so as to avoid accountability and a vote to disqualify them from future office,” Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

Absent the part about disqualification, Schumer's logic may be lacking. Here's why we say that:

If a president "commits a heinous crime," he can be prosecuted for that crime after resigning from office. The criminal penalties he would face for his heinous crime would carry a great deal more "accountability" than a toothless conviction in the Senate after he's already left office.

At that point, up jumps the second part of Schumer's vision:

He pictures Trump being convicted by the Senate, then being disqualified from ever holding federal office again. For current denizens of Our Town, tis an imagined consummation devoutly to be wished.

Almost surely, no such votes will ever occur. There will be no Senate conviction in the upcoming trial, in part because of the possibility of that subsequent disqualification vote. 

Still, we beat on against the current here in Our Town, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

The letter writer is clearly right in one way. The former commander has largely been silenced—but we propel him back into cable discussion by Our Town's current desire to make the rubble bounce.

It's also true that an "acquittal" in the impeachment trial will create a useful talking-point for the former commander. Today, though, we focus on a few basic questions:

How do we know that the Senate has the constitutional right to "disqualify" Trump from holding future office? Where's the evidence for that assertion?

As always, the story is being told in a thoroughly standard way. The Senate can, by a two-thirds vote, convict a president who's been impeached and thereby remove him from office. (In this case, from an office he no longer holds.)

According to the standard narration, the Senate can then vote, by a simple majority, to disqualify a convicted president from holding any federal office ever again. This morning we ask a simple question:

Where is the constitutional language which asserts any of that? And how clear is any such language?

Trust us—we've tried to find that language. By standard agreement, the searcher will be directed first to Article 1, Section 3, which murkily says this:

The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

That passage is always cited, As you can see, it includes an extremely murky clause.

Plainly, the Senate rules on all impeachments. Plainly, conviction in such a trial requires a two-thirds vote.

Plainly, if the president is being tried, the Chief Justice must preside. That said, people who hold other offices can also be impeached and tried. In part, that's where the apparent murk comes in.

Our questions:

Where does that passage say anything about holding a second vote? Where does it say that this unmentioned second vote would require only a simple majority?

Also, why doesn't the murky, highlighted language mean that a convicted official will automatically be disqualified from holding future office? Why do we think that a second vote would be required at all?

(Also, is it clear that the murky language refers to holding future office? How do we know it doesn't clumsily mean that the convicted party will be disqualified from holding whatever office he held at the time of conviction?)

The highlighted language is strikingly murky. Within the longer passage, the vote to convict is clearly defined, but there's no mention—none at all—of any second vote. 

As best we ca tell, the concept of a second vote has largely been drawn from thin air, starting with something "the Senate determined" in 1862. The Senate made this determination at the height of the Civil War, when it was removing a Johnny Reb from office.

For now, consider the ridiculous modern-day consequence of that ancient determination. In Schumer's portrait, fifty Democratic senators will soon be able to pass a vote to keep the most popular Republican pol from running for president in 2024. 

Our view? If the sheer absurdity of that prospect doesn't grab you, perhaps the murky constitutional language will.

Schumer imagines a glorious action. Dreams of this glorious action are widespread here in Our Town. 

What we haven't yet seen is this. We haven't seen anyone try to explain how we know that some such second vote would be constitutionally permissible. We also haven't seen anyone note that the general prospect, in which one party can disqualify the other party's most popular pol, doesn't quite exactly sense.

For today, we link you to Ian Millhiser's attempt to explain this matter at Vox. 

According to Vox, Millhiser got his law degree in 2006 from Duke Law School, "where he served as senior note editor on the Duke Law Journal and was elected to the Order of the Coif."  Two weeks ago, he authored a lengthy attempt to explain the possible vote for disqualification.

Millhiser writes at length. But in the end, this is the best he can do concerning our central questions:

MILLHISER (1/13/21): The Constitution is silent on whether, after an official has already been impeached and removed from office, imposing the additional sanction of disqualification requires a supermajority vote. In the past, however, the Senate determined that a simple majority vote is sufficient for disqualification. Judge Archibald was disqualified by a vote of 39-35 after he was removed from office.


The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether simple majority vote is sufficient to disqualify someone from public office after they’ve already been removed. Humphreys and Porteous were both disqualified in supermajority votes, and Archibald never brought a case before the Court that could have allowed the justices to rule on how many votes are required to disqualify a public official.

Nevertheless, there is a strong constitutional argument that the Senate should be allowed to disqualify an individual by a simple majority vote, after that individual has already been convicted by a two-thirds majority.

According to Millhiser, "The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether simple majority vote is sufficient." As best we can tell, the Supreme Court also hasn't ruled on whether this type of disqualification is permitted at all. 

The "strong argument" cited by Milhiser seems rather weak to us. He never explains how he knows that the murky language in question should be taken as directing some type of second vote.

As Millhiser notes, only three officials in American history have ever faced this second vote. None of the three ever challenged his disqualification in court.

The former commander surely would; this would visit him on us further. Still, we beat on ceaselessly. Another letter in today's Times explains why:

LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (1/26/21): Since the Republican defense team certainly won’t call Donald Trump as a witness at the Senate impeachment trial, the Democratic prosecutors should subpoena him. Now lacking presidential privilege, he could assert his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify. Or he might follow his instincts and try to defend himself. That should be fun!

So cool! We could subpoena the former commander—bring him forward in chains! The excitement would animate cable news. Like some denizens of Our Town, cable news mainly wants to have fun!

We've seen no one address the points we've offered. According to various experts and scholars, at times when tribes are drifting toward war, our minds aren't wired for that.

What is truth, a great jurist once asked. Anthropologically speaking, to what extent are we the humans wired to care about that?

Tomorrow: Ebert and Gibson, three stars


  1. Tl;dr
    "Then he would have left his term in shame..."

    Meh. Wishful thinking on your zombie cult's part, dear Bob.

    He would have left exactly the same as he does leave: as the president of peace and prosperity not seen in at least half-century.

    On the other hand, your zombie circus with zombie clowns is always fun to watch, so bring it on. We sincerely hope that you, dear Bob, are enjoying the show just as much as we are.

  2. "He pictures Trump being convicted by the Senate, then being disqualified from ever holding federal office again. For current denizens of Our Town, tis an imagined consummation devoutly to be wished."

    You bet your bippy it is!

  3. "Still, we beat on against the current here in Our Town, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

    Trump has been gone from office for less than a week. That is hardly "the past."

    Somerby is immersed in political strategic calculations but he ignores moral issues. Trump incited an insurrection that nearly succeeded in damaging our democracy. He also plotted and pressured others to participate in overturning a valid election in order to stay in office. These are not normal acts of a partisan president, but illegal and immoral acts that demand consequences in order to restore unity and make it clear to both Trump's supporters and future presidents that such actions will not be tolerated. That is the purpose of this impeachment, not Somerby's narrow political calculations of advantage (such as Trump's publicity-seeking). Somerby sounds like someone arguing that Richard Nixon actually triumphed when he resigned because look at all the publicity he got. Somerby grows more foolish every day.

    1. Anon 11:18 - you make a very weak argument (to be nice about it. The article in the Constitution provides for the removal of the President or other Federal official. Since Trump is already out of office, there is no purpose to remove him. It is highly unlikely that Trump will be convicted by the necessary 2/3 majority, so it is most likely a moot point that there ever would be a second vote to bar him from future office. It will keep Trump in the spotlight, and make him a martyr to his followers. It will do the opposite of promoting unity. I always thought it was better to be smart instead of stupid. Your last sentence is so ridiculous its painful. You and reason are complete strangers.

    2. It is cynical to assume that Republicans would not vote to convict after hearing the evidence. It implies that Republicans do not vote their conscience, but only party interests.

      Trump is already a martyr to his followers -- his claim that his election was stolen has made him a martyr to them.

      Trump was constantly in the spotlight before being elected and he will remain so because the press and public regard him as a celebrity and/or clown. There is nothing to be gained by refusing to impeach him in order to avoid press coverage. That's stupid.

      Trump needs to be shown to be a traitor. That is the only way to show his followers that the public, Republicans and Democrats alike, do not approve of his behavior. That his followers need such a lesson is indicated by how many seem to be surprised that they are losing their jobs and being arrested after the attempted coup. Bad behavior needs to be punished in order to make it clear to the morally confused that such behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated.

      You don't need to insult other people in order to state your disagreements. When you have a spare moment, look up what deadrat means in the urban dictionary and think about whether you want to emulate someone who chooses that as their screen name.

    3. I miss Deadrat, though I don't know what he has to do with it. TDH's post today is excellent. I am sure you are a good person, but your reasoning abilities are poor - similar to all these right wing nuts, if not in content, then in style. For example, you state "Trump needs to be shown to be a traitor." He is not being impeached for being a "traitor." I don't know where you get the idea that Trump being convicted will clear things up for "morally confused" people. You don't seem to be aware that there is more than one side to most contentious issues. The Constitution isn't clear at all about impeaching someone after they have left office. What the dems are doing could easily backfire. It's hard to see what the benefit will be, given that there is almost no chance there will be a 2/3 vote to convict. I've been a lawyer for over 40 years. I had to study constitutional law in law school. As part of my job, I can tell the difference between a reasonable argument, and one like yours. This is one of TDH's better posts; when you call him foolish, based on a series of tendentious claims, it has the effect of insulting my intelligence.

    4. Don't be such an obvious copycat of Somerby (and deadrat). You have no idea what kind of person I am. My reasoning is fine. People who you disagree with are not a priori bad at logic (as Somerby always says, without proof). You inject things into your criticisms that were not said and then use them as complaints, without addressing the points that were made.

      I do not believe you were ever a lawyer. As deadrat used to say, anyone can claim anything on the internet but there is no way to verify it. You do not think well enough to have been a good lawyer and you certainly don't write well enough.

      TDH never writes anything except foolishness these days. Your intelligence is impossible to insult.

      You are entitled to your opinions, but you would do better to stop attacking other people and just state your disagreements. That way you don't look like such a huge asshole.

    5. You don't believe I ever was a lawyer. Shows how you come to wring conclusions without evidence.

    6. You are innocent until proven guilty.

    7. @AC: You “miss” deadrat? Why do you think he hit the road? I suggest it is because he finally realized Somerby is a bigoted fool.

    8. Yes, he said as much.

      There is also the repetitive nature of Somerby's garbage. After a while, anyone commenting also becomes repetitive. I don't know about deadrat, but I find it boring to point out the same errors and call out the same idiocies over and over. But Somerby's lies shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged any more than Trump's. My theory is that deadrat ultimately choked on his own bile. Deadrat always claimed to be a liberal, like Somerby does, but he spent nearly all of his time attacking liberals in comments and defending Somerby. Somerby has become more and more indefensible. Meanwhile, I think that liberals or progressives who attack others on the left are making Q smile. Perhaps deadrat came to that realization too?

    9. deadrat left immediately following a trouncing he received in debating me here, where deadrat was exposed as nothing more than a google/copy/paste comment hero. I debated deadrat here for a couple years and typically deadrat would avoid actual debate by repeating his dumb catch phrases like "reading comprehension", but on the occasion of deadrat's final debate, I was able to engage him in a way where he felt inclined to make assertions of "facts", facts that were demonstrably false. He got nailed badly and the very next day he announced he would not be commenting here anymore, as if anybody cared beyond being pleased about such a situation.

      AC/MA similarly devolves discourse to insults instead of making coherent points. Hey AC/MA you fucking moron, show me one shred of evidence THAT PERSUADING TRUMP VOTERS TO OUR SIDE MAKES ANY FUCKING SENSE.

      AC/MA you are not a liberal, you are an angry asshole that frankly no one here likes. Keep commenting here if you get off on triggering people offering a discourse in good faith, you sad sack of shit.

  4. "In Schumer's portrait, fifty Democratic senators will soon be able to pass a vote to keep the most popular Republican pol from running for president in 2024."

    If such a vote is held and the outcome results in Trump's prohibition from running again, it will not be a consequence of those who voted to bar him (Democrats or Republicans), it will be a consequence of Trump's improper actions while in office.

  5. Somerby's Cult of Truth is a ruse intended to scold those who abandoned the notion that he has any relevancy or influence.

  6. The remedy of disqualification from holding future public office is part of the constitution. It does not need to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court unless there is some dispute brought to the court. The Supreme Court does not make the law.

    Somerby's complaint that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether someone can be prevented from holding office implies that unless the court has ruled on every part of the constitution, none of those parts apply because any of them might be overturned by a court ruling. That isn't how the constitution works. It is assumed valid unless a ruling clarifies its application in some way, not assumed invalid because Somerby doesn't like it that Trump might be prevented from running in 2024.

  7. "According to various experts and scholars, at times when tribes are drifting toward war, our minds aren't wired for that."

    We are not drifting toward war. We are attempting to hold accountable someone who abused the highest office. There is a great deal of public support for that among all but the ex-president's most loyal supporters. Even Republicans recognize Trump's malfeasance and the need to punish him, not simply let him slink away. Those that are continuing to support him are (1) frightened of violence by his MAGA cult, (2) political opportunists worried about reelection, (3) cronies who have benefitted from association with him, who fear prosecution if Trump goes down hard.

    Which of these categories does Somerby fit, and if he is not a die-hard Trump supporter, why does he sound so much like one?

    Random letters in the NY Times do not represent so-called liberal or progressive thought. They are the beliefs of the people who wrote them, not "Our Town" or any of the other concoctions Somerby has created to harangue the left.

  8. "We've seen no one address the points we've offered. "

    There's a reason for that. Somerby's "points" have no merit.

  9. I want to see Trump prosecuted in criminal court for inciting a mob that murdered a Capitol police officer. I want to see the family sue Trump in civil court for damages. I do not want Trump disqualified for future office. I want him to hang around and hopefully run again for president so as to further destroy the Republican Party.

    1. Those are crimes and I would hope he would be prosecuted for them. However, the attempted coup and subversion of an election are political crimes that should be prosecuted using political remedies, and that is what Congress is doing. One is not a substitute for the other.

    2. Trump may be morally responsible for the riot at the Capitol, but he couldn't be proved guilty. He explicitly called for a "peaceful" demonstration. Yes, he actually used the word "peaceful".

    3. Yes, he can be proved guilty. Wait and see what the evidence against him is. He not only spoke at the rally but he was involved in organizing it and there is a great deal more to this than just his speech.

    4. https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-cherrypicks-one-line-from-trump-jan-6-reject-impeachment-2021-1

      "The GOP thinks one line from Trump's Jan. 6 speech will excuse the rest of it and everything else he did to incite the Capitol siege."

    5. They are tracking down the funding to the insurgents, interviewing participants, and investigating the conspiracy, including involvement of various prominent Republicans. This is not just about Trump's speech.

    6. Agreed. Trump labeled the Jan 6 rally "Stop the Steal." The only way for Trump's assembled minions to stop that day's democratic process was through violence, so that's what they did. They killed a cop to service Trump's ego, revealing once and for all the depraved character of Republicans. The depths of their hatred for democracy are so deep that they are willing to become a party of murderous cop-killers.

    7. Glaucon there was NO way for Trump's minions to stop the election of Biden. At most, they could delay it by a day. IMO they weren't trying to stop the election, because that was impossible.

    8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-justice-department-overturn-election/2021/01/22/b7f0b9fa-5d1c-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html

    9. These standard issue Right-wing snowflakes were throwing a temper tantrum because back people's votes counted just as much as theirs. They've been whining like two-year olds about that since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

      Denial of the modern Conservative movement being anything but an amoral dumpster fire of bigots and imbeciles is the definition of gas-lighting.

    10. Now's the time to pass a law legalizing the killing of Mike Pence if he makes you mad. 90% of Republican Senators are already good with it.

    11. David in Cal,
      You've convinced me the impeachment trial must be held.
      Let the GOP Senators go on record calling 1/6, "Not treason, but actually a snowflake circle jerk."

  10. The Constitution does NOT bar an impeached President from holding future government office. It bars him from holding "any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" What does the bolded phrase mean? It pretty clearly means that the prohibition doesn't apply to all federal positions. But, which types of positions are those of "Honor, Trust of Profit"? I've seen one expert say that the person would be barred from appointive office but could still hold elective office.

    BTW Democratic Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury and convicted. He subsequently got electeds to the House, where he has been serving since 1992.

    1. I guess the House of Representatives is not an office of honor, trust or profit. It may be that he was eligible for removal based on his previous impeachment but the House chose not to do that. The House is in charge of seating its own members.

      Given that he was the first African American to be appointed a federal judge, it might be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his impeachment, specifically, whether he was a target of a vendetta for racial reasons. If that were recognized, then it might explain the House's willingness to admit him as a member despite his prior impeachment.

    2. Democrats controlled both Houses of the Congress that impeached Hastings.

    3. This is from the Senate.gov

      The following day, the Senate voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment, convicting Hastings, by the necessary two-thirds vote, on 8 articles (1-5, 7-9). On two articles (6, 17) the vote fell short of the required majority to convict. On article 11, the Senate voted 95 not guilty to 0 guilty. Having achieved the necessary majority vote to convict on 8 articles, the Senate’s president pro tempore (Robert C. Byrd) ordered Hastings removed from office. The Senate did not vote to disqualify him from holding future office.

      Four years later, Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the term beginning January 3, 1993. As a member of that body, on December 19, 1998, Hastings voted (on four articles of impeachment) against impeaching President William Jefferson Clinton.

    4. "Democrats controlled both Houses of the Congress that impeached Hastings."

      And Hastings is a Democrat. That suggests that party affiliation didn't matter to anyone. If Democrats operated the same way as current Republicans, Hastings wouldn't have been impeached and convicted, no matter what he did.

  11. Sorry to the first letter writer, but people need to be held accountable for their actions.The Republicans sure won't. All this bs about unity begs the question of why didn't the Republicans practice unity with the Democrats under Trump or Obama?

  12. Seen on Facebook: What a coup attempt goes unpunished it becomes a training exercise.

  13. Did Trump’s actions help elicit a riot? Yes, according to Mitch McConnell. A police officer and others are dead. Republicans need to have a head count on this issue after all the evidence has been made public. There is zero chance that this trial would be dismissed by the republicans if the subject was Hillary Clinton. And they would be right to hold it. Trump and his core supporters promoted a fictitious theory, in fact several of them, that motivated fringe extremists to attack our captital. “Any office of honor or profit” is a double whammy for the grifter in chief. POTUS is inarguably an office of honor, or was up until 2016. 5 people died in an anti-American insurrection immediately after a rally organized and held by Trump and his allies. The American people should see the evidence brought to light and the so called law and order senate republicans can show how craven they are to bring this final chapter to a proper close. They wouldn’t have it any other way if the shoe were on the other foot.


    I want to use this opportunity I have to say a big thanks to Dr Great for getting back my ex husband. I’m Linda Gibson from USA, after 7 years of marriage my husband left me for another woman I did whatever I could to get him back but all I did was in vain I was sad, but I didn’t lose hope of getting him back because I had faith in God. So I search online on how to get my husband back, and I came across a post of Dr Great of how he helped a lady to get back her ex, I contacted him and told him the pain I was going through, he told me what to do and I did it, then he casted a love spell for me 48 hours later my husband called me and told me he is sorry for what he did and that he misses me very much, later that day he came back home and beg for my forgiveness, since then our love grew stronger. For the marvelous things Dr Great has done for me it would be unfair for me not to let the whole world know that such a powerful spell caster do live. If you want to get back your ex fast email Dr Great at infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com or add him up on WhatsApp +2348118829899 Blog: lindagibson90.blogspot.com view his blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com

  15. My name is Riana from USA i want to testify of a powerful spell caster who return my ex boyfriend,it all started when i took his phone and saw a lady message him that she enjoyed the last time and i confronted him about it he was angry and and stop talking to me from that day he started acting strange then he told me he didn't want me anymore that he loves someone else i was so diver-stated i cried all day and night he blocked me from his Instagram and on phone so i couldn't reach him anymore this made me sad and cry even the more i was searching for something online when i saw a comment about Dr Ogudugu great work i contacted him and told him about my problems and i did everything he asked me to do he told me after 24hrs my ex will return back to me well i doubted him though because my ex didn't want to have anything to do with me anymore the next day to my greatest surprise he called me and was begging me to give him another chance now we are both happy together all thanks to Dr Ogudugu he can also help you contact greatogudugu@gmail.com/WhatsApp: +2348063739701

  16. My husband and I have been having lots of problems living together, he never gives me attention or makes me happy because he has fallen in love with another woman outside our marriage. I tried my best to make sure that my husband leaves this woman but the more I talk to him about it the more he makes me feel sad and unhappy, My marriage started leading to divorce because he no longer gives me attention. I wanted to forget him but i love him and didn't want to lose him. We have been married for years and he is all I could call a true best friend and best in all, the man that handles my problems perfectly, the man that makes sacrifices for ,my happiness. I wanted him back in my life badly and I was so confused. My Friends told me to buy books about relationships, so I went online for relationship books while I came across a spell caster called Dr Emu. I read testimonies and reviews about him so I contacted him immediately, explained my problems to him. Same day , he casted a spell for me and assured me for 2 days that my husband will return to me and to my greatest surprise the third day my husband came knocking on my door and begged for forgiveness. I am so happy that my love is back again and not only that, we are about to get married again, he proposed. I wouldn't stop talking about him. Contact him today if you need his help via email: emutemple@gmail.com and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay. Website: https://emutemple.wordpress.com/

  17. It is a very hard situation when playing the lottery and never won, or keep winning low fund not up to 100 bucks, i have been a victim of such a tough life, the biggest fund i have ever won was 100 bucks, and i have been playing lottery for almost 12 years now, things suddenly change the moment i came across a secret online, a testimony of a spell caster called DR EMU, who help people in any type of lottery numbers, i was not easily convinced, but i decided to give try, now i am a proud lottery winner with the help of DR EMU, i won $1,000.0000.00 and i am making this known to every one out there who have been trying all day to win the lottery, believe me this is the only way to win the lottery. contact him via email: Emutemple@gmail.com call or whats app +2347012841542 Website: http://emutemple.website2.me/