Offical Impeachment Thread

[AzogtheDefiler]

Unfortunately you do not see. Therein lies the problem.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

Right back at ya, dope.

You don't have the capacity to engage in any substantive way. Just a clown.

Why don’t you go back and see who began being a dink. Hint: you. If you want to start from scratch just say so but don’t make the mistake of believing that you didn’t begin this BS.

Unfortunately you do not see. Therein lies the problem.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

Right back at ya, dope.

You don't have the capacity to engage in any substantive way. Just a clown.

Why don’t you go back and see who began being a dink. Hint: you. If you want to start from scratch just say so but don’t make the mistake of believing that you didn’t begin this BS.

I've tried to engage you with every post. You chose to troll instead. You punked out as you still are.

Wrong. You began with an unprovoked as Hominem attack and then tried to back peddle. As Germany learned in WW2, once you start a fight, be ready to finish it.

 

[OKTexas]

Pelosi looks like a babbling idiot, because she is one. Today it's bribery. What will it be tomorrow? What a joke. What a waste.

It went from collusion to quid pro quo. From quid pro quo, to extortion. From extortion, it went to bribery.

It's called throwing it against the wall to see what sticks.

It is a fsct that the Ruissians interfered in the 2016 election and it was likely Trump colluded by providing them some direction as to where he needed help. This was basically proven whren his campaign forwarded their internal polling.

Later, Trump made a phone call exorting the President of the Ukraine.

One is not related to another.

Mueller report says otherwise.

The Mueller report says that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. Maybe you read the first part and you will see this.

You act like that determination would exclude any other countries interference, that's not the case.

.

 

[007]

If there never was an investigation, then what is the corruption Biden is alleged to have engaged in?

That's been discussed repeatedly. Coke head Hunter, who was not only kicked out of the military, and attended rehab three times, got a job in a country he never dealt with before, unfamiliar with the language, in an industry he had no experience in, for 80K a month. Out of the 7.5 billion people on this planet, why would Burisma choose him of all people?

A couple of weeks ago the FOIA forced them to release an email of Burisma dropping Hunter's name to try and setup a meeting between them and the State department. Supposedly, more emails are going to be released in the near future as they get legally processed.

You didn't answer my question.

The line on Biden's corruption was that he extorted the Ukrainian govt to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.

Now you're saying there was never an investigation and the "corruption" is because
"Crackhead" Hunter Biden landed a lucrative job?

Trump said it was about the investigationand the firing. So which is it?

What Trump asked for was for Ukraine to look into it to see if there was anything there. Trump released the money before any investigation even started, and there was still no investigation that we are aware of today.

What Slow Joe did was a quid pro quo, and there's nothing illegal about it unless it did have something to do with his son. Again, that's what Trump was asking Zelensky about. He wants to see if there is indeed a connection, because an energy company just doesn't pay somebody millions of dollars for nothing. Hunter got the job when his father was the US VP.

Given the fact Zelensky nor anybody in the Ukraine government even knew about the hold on US aid until a month after the phone call, tells us that whatever Trump said, Zelensky didn't take as a threat, because he knew nothing about money on hold. That's one of the many reasons this impeachment is a compete farce.

Yes but you're saying now there was never an investigation. So Trump's claim that there was corruption in Biden working to sack the prosecutor to save his son from an investigation was wrong? Or are you wrong?

You seem confused as your explanations are spreading beyond the known facts of what Trump stated in his call.

First of all, Trump only asked Zelensky "to look into it" as a favor, not to conduct an official investigation. Secondly, because there was no investigation, that destroys the Democrats claim of quid pro quo. That's why they aborted it and started to use "bribery" as their new charge.

If Trump's attempt was to issue a quid pro quo, he wouldn't' have released the money until he got something in return. Instead, he released the money anyway.

Don't forget they threw in EXTORTION between quid pro quo and bribery.

These bat shit crazy, lunatic demtrash change the game faster than we can keep up with.

I think today they're hoping the bitch cries. That ought to do it... the president made me cry because he fired me... WHAAAAAA, WHAAA. I'm SURE they'll be able to impeach the president on... HE MADE ME CRY.

 

[BluesLegend]

President Trump has every right to FIRE any ambassador for any reason he so chooses. Especially ambassador's stabbing the president in the back, undermining the president's foreign policy which he has a Constitutional right to set. This is not a debate or a negotiation, the State Dept and these appointees work for Trump. The State department is not a separate branch of government, president Trump is their boss.

 

[RealDave]

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

Nothing between Hunter and China, then why did they send 600K+ to an account controlled by him and Devon Archer?

.

It was an investment company. Company owners have access to their company's bank account. It does not mean they take it for themselves. You assfucks are dumber than shit.

The account was one they both drew from for personal use, it was NOT a customer account. The existence of the account, and the companies involved in making payments to it were revealed in federal court proceeding against Devon Archer. You being ignorant of it doesn't make me dumb. Perhaps you should educate yourself.

.

.

Hunter Biden invested in that fund. So if he did, he would have an account to deal with those investments.

Instead of trying to pin something on Hunter Biden, you should be worried about your orange buddy.

 

[RealDave]

President Trump has every right to FIRE any ambassador for any reason he so chooses. Especially ambassador's stabbing the president in the back, undermining the president's foreign policy which he has a Constitutional right to set. This is not a debate or a negotiation, the State Dept and these appointees work for Trump. The State department is not a separate branch of government, president Trump is their boss.

So Trump has the right to fire an ambassador that won't go along with his extortion scheme. I get it.

 

[RealDave]

no one said it was about harming republicans.

That's because it didn't and wasn't designed to.

Nobody ever said it was hidden either, or that it was exposed by a concerned whistle blower, there was nothing controversial about the pressure we applied to get the corrupt prosecutor fired.

After reading the transcript we knew more than your “concerned whistleblower” one word btw, dummy. And that whistleblower is a partisan stooge. Nothingburger.

I disagree. The complaint as released gives a picture of the events leading up to and after the phone call. If it were a nothing burger we wouldn't be here today.

Russia collusion was nothing and we wasted two years. Ever read the Boy who cried wolf?

Not being caught is not the same as being innocent.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

Nothing between Hunter and China, then why did they send 600K+ to an account controlled by him and Devon Archer?

.

It was an investment company. Company owners have access to their company's bank account. It does not mean they take it for themselves. You assfucks are dumber than shit.

The account was one they both drew from for personal use, it was NOT a customer account. The existence of the account, and the companies involved in making payments to it were revealed in federal court proceeding against Devon Archer. You being ignorant of it doesn't make me dumb. Perhaps you should educate yourself.

.

.

Hunter Biden invested in that fund. So if he did, he would have an account to deal with those investments.

Instead of trying to pin something on Hunter Biden, you should be worried about your orange buddy.

LMAO. StupidFakeDave saw nothing wrong with HRCs team smashing blackberries and iPads and now sees nothing wrong with blatant Nepotism by holding a foreign power hostage. Stupidity 101.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's been discussed repeatedly. Coke head Hunter, who was not only kicked out of the military, and attended rehab three times, got a job in a country he never dealt with before, unfamiliar with the language, in an industry he had no experience in, for 80K a month. Out of the 7.5 billion people on this planet, why would Burisma choose him of all people?

A couple of weeks ago the FOIA forced them to release an email of Burisma dropping Hunter's name to try and setup a meeting between them and the State department. Supposedly, more emails are going to be released in the near future as they get legally processed.

You didn't answer my question.

The line on Biden's corruption was that he extorted the Ukrainian govt to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.

Now you're saying there was never an investigation and the "corruption" is because
"Crackhead" Hunter Biden landed a lucrative job?

Trump said it was about the investigationand the firing. So which is it?

What Trump asked for was for Ukraine to look into it to see if there was anything there. Trump released the money before any investigation even started, and there was still no investigation that we are aware of today.

What Slow Joe did was a quid pro quo, and there's nothing illegal about it unless it did have something to do with his son. Again, that's what Trump was asking Zelensky about. He wants to see if there is indeed a connection, because an energy company just doesn't pay somebody millions of dollars for nothing. Hunter got the job when his father was the US VP.

Given the fact Zelensky nor anybody in the Ukraine government even knew about the hold on US aid until a month after the phone call, tells us that whatever Trump said, Zelensky didn't take as a threat, because he knew nothing about money on hold. That's one of the many reasons this impeachment is a compete farce.

Yes but you're saying now there was never an investigation. So Trump's claim that there was corruption in Biden working to sack the prosecutor to save his son from an investigation was wrong? Or are you wrong?

You seem confused as your explanations are spreading beyond the known facts of what Trump stated in his call.

First of all, Trump only asked Zelensky "to look into it" as a favor, not to conduct an official investigation. Secondly, because there was no investigation, that destroys the Democrats claim of quid pro quo. That's why they aborted it and started to use "bribery" as their new charge.

If Trump's attempt was to issue a quid pro quo, he wouldn't' have released the money until he got something in return. Instead, he released the money anyway.

Don't forget they threw in EXTORTION between quid pro quo and bribery.

These bat shit crazy, lunatic demtrash change the game faster than we can keep up with.

I think today they're hoping the bitch cries. That ought to do it... the president made me cry because he fired me... WHAAAAAA, WHAAA. I'm SURE they'll be able to impeach the president on... HE MADE ME CRY.

Well I guess I should make the case for Blackmail. Yep that's what ol'Trumpybear did. He tried to Blackmail that president into publicly announcing that the Ukraine was opening an investingation into the Bidens corruption.

Blackmail I tells ya.

Doesn't matter what you call it. The turd still stinks.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

no one said it was about harming republicans.

That's because it didn't and wasn't designed to.

Nobody ever said it was hidden either, or that it was exposed by a concerned whistle blower, there was nothing controversial about the pressure we applied to get the corrupt prosecutor fired.

After reading the transcript we knew more than your “concerned whistleblower” one word btw, dummy. And that whistleblower is a partisan stooge. Nothingburger.

I disagree. The complaint as released gives a picture of the events leading up to and after the phone call. If it were a nothing burger we wouldn't be here today.

Russia collusion was nothing and we wasted two years. Ever read the Boy who cried wolf?

Not being caught is not the same as being innocent.

So you believe Mueller wasted two years and is a bad investigator? Lol

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

Right back at ya, dope.

You don't have the capacity to engage in any substantive way. Just a clown.

Why don’t you go back and see who began being a dink. Hint: you. If you want to start from scratch just say so but don’t make the mistake of believing that you didn’t begin this BS.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

Right back at ya, dope.

You don't have the capacity to engage in any substantive way. Just a clown.

Why don’t you go back and see who began being a dink. Hint: you. If you want to start from scratch just say so but don’t make the mistake of believing that you didn’t begin this BS.

I've tried to engage you with every post. You chose to troll instead. You punked out as you still are.

Wrong. You began with an unprovoked as Hominem attack and then tried to back peddle. As Germany learned in WW2, once you start a fight, be ready to finish it.

LOL...
We're finished, dope.

 

[007]

President Trump has every right to FIRE any ambassador for any reason he so chooses. Especially ambassador's stabbing the president in the back, undermining the president's foreign policy which he has a Constitutional right to set. This is not a debate or a negotiation, the State Dept and these appointees work for Trump. The State department is not a separate branch of government, president Trump is their boss.

So Trump has the right to fire an ambassador that won't go along with his extortion scheme. I get it.

See... even YOU can't keep up with your demtard propaganda. Extortion is out already, pard, it's BRIBERY now... I think... at least it was, but I think today it's going to change again to... "HE MADE ME CRY."

 

[RealDave]

The people elected Trump. Let him govern until the people decide otherwise. Again, I bet prior presidents did similar shit.

You stumbled across the problem. They don't want Trump governing because when Trump does, he makes things better for the American people. The Democrats certainly don't want that. Look at our border now, look at people making more in wages, and bringing home more in their paychecks. Look at our economy.

Trump is a huge success, and the Democrats need to stop this success, before fence sitting Americans come to the understanding that Democrats don't do anything for the people, Democrats only do things for themselves.

Yep... 100% fact... what's GOOD for America is BAD for democrats. They know it, we know it, the whole damn country knows it by now, and they also know that's why the democrats and their propaganda wing have been on an apoplectic, 24/7, three year long TRASHING campaign to get rid of the president.

I'm afraid the democrats have an absolute BLOODY ASS KICKIN' coming next year, and I think they're beginning to see it. It's breaking through their HATE, and now they're starting to get real worried. There's 31 democrats in areas that Trump won, and they're starting to think Nancy has thrown them under the buss to satisfy the radical goons that are now driving the dem clown show. She put all her faith in Adam ScHITt to get this impeachment across the finish line, but it's pretty clear by now that that isn't going to happen, that it's BACK FIRING, AGAIN, and this was their BIG FINISH, the FINALE, the IMPEACHMENT, the WE'VE GOT HIM NOW #7,901,652. They've SHOT THEIR WAD and now it's OVER, and next year the American people are going to send them PACKING.

Hand over the gavel, Nanc, you had it for two years and COMPLETELY FUCKED YOURSELF and your GUTTER LICKING PARTY with it.

What the Democrats are doing now is an act of desperation. They went into Defcon 1 mode when they learned that Trump was curious as to what took place between Joe and the Ukraine in regards to his son. It was further accelerated when Durham announced that his investigation turned criminal just a few weeks ago.

Investigations usually take a long time before they turn into a criminal investigation, so not only does Durham have something rock solid, it's also something very damaging to the Democrat party and particular members involved. An investigation turning criminal this quickly means there's a hell of a lot out there. Or as Karen Carpenter once sang "It's only just begun."

Trump was curious so he extorted the Ukraine. I got it.

 

[RealDave]

no one said it was about harming republicans.

That's because it didn't and wasn't designed to.

Nobody ever said it was hidden either, or that it was exposed by a concerned whistle blower, there was nothing controversial about the pressure we applied to get the corrupt prosecutor fired.

After reading the transcript we knew more than your “concerned whistleblower” one word btw, dummy. And that whistleblower is a partisan stooge. Nothingburger.

I disagree. The complaint as released gives a picture of the events leading up to and after the phone call. If it were a nothing burger we wouldn't be here today.

We have had a three year steady diet of nothing burgers

View attachment 289972

Making fun of women who were assaulted. A trait of pathetic, women hating Trumpettes.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Yeah, it was a public and open call after the whistleblower complaint was made public. Time isn't random.

As to deciding at the ballot box, what's the cutoff date for that? 1st year? 2nd? Or is that opinion based on your sentiment that Trump did nothing wrong? If he gunned down Lindsay Graham in a fit of pique - and who hasn't wanted to do that? - 3 months before the election, would you say 'let the voters decide'? Is it a matter of principle or politics?

"If principle", he laughed, "does that mean there should never be an impeachment?"

I am 39 and have never supported impeachment. I did not like BHO but I respected the will of the voters and the man and ignored all the cat calls that he was Kenyan. The people elected Trump. Let him govern until the people decide otherwise. Again, I bet prior presidents did similar shit. The anti Trump movement began in November 2016 after he won. It’s like the boy who cried wolf. Bullshit conspiracy theories. I read the transcript and saw zero wrong with it. Nothing. You disagree so let’s settle it at the ballot box. Why does that trigger you so much?

Impeachment is in the Constitution for a reason. I appreciate you haven't supported an impeachment in your 39 years, but that tidbit doesn't address whether you think there should ever be an impeachment. Keep your 'triggered' nonsense. If I tell you you're full of crap, it doesn't mean I'm triggered, it means I think you're full of crap.

no, there should never be one unless both parties agree. Ever!!!!

WE have elections every four years for the position, the people should decide.

In which case there would be nothing like a little tyranny of the minority to protect a tyrant.

dude, you can't remove a president without 67 Senators. that is both parties. Why do we need them? the last two were both outrageous.

That's the trial portion where, hopefully, evidence is considered. Impeachment happens in the House, as is obvious. In your bi-partisan scenario, a President with the support of the minority of the House, would be above the Constitution.

As to the last two, I assume you mean the only two.

 

[RealDave]

You didn't answer my question.

The line on Biden's corruption was that he extorted the Ukrainian govt to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.

Now you're saying there was never an investigation and the "corruption" is because
"Crackhead" Hunter Biden landed a lucrative job?

Trump said it was about the investigationand the firing. So which is it?

What Trump asked for was for Ukraine to look into it to see if there was anything there. Trump released the money before any investigation even started, and there was still no investigation that we are aware of today.

What Slow Joe did was a quid pro quo, and there's nothing illegal about it unless it did have something to do with his son. Again, that's what Trump was asking Zelensky about. He wants to see if there is indeed a connection, because an energy company just doesn't pay somebody millions of dollars for nothing. Hunter got the job when his father was the US VP.

Given the fact Zelensky nor anybody in the Ukraine government even knew about the hold on US aid until a month after the phone call, tells us that whatever Trump said, Zelensky didn't take as a threat, because he knew nothing about money on hold. That's one of the many reasons this impeachment is a compete farce.

Yes but you're saying now there was never an investigation. So Trump's claim that there was corruption in Biden working to sack the prosecutor to save his son from an investigation was wrong? Or are you wrong?

You seem confused as your explanations are spreading beyond the known facts of what Trump stated in his call.

First of all, Trump only asked Zelensky "to look into it" as a favor, not to conduct an official investigation. Secondly, because there was no investigation, that destroys the Democrats claim of quid pro quo. That's why they aborted it and started to use "bribery" as their new charge.

If Trump's attempt was to issue a quid pro quo, he wouldn't' have released the money until he got something in return. Instead, he released the money anyway.

No. Bribery is the ask whether it's ultimately delivered or not. Trump released the money because the WB exposed their scheme.

You still did not answer the question. Was there an investigation or not?

I answered that question several times: to our knowledge, there was no investigation.

If the Democrats wanted to prove that there was bribery or a quid pro quo, they wouldn't have came out this quickly with the whistleblowers claim. They would have given it time until Trump DID get something in return. But as I stated in my last post, they are extremely desperate now that Barr and Durham are exposing what happened in the last administration. As weak of a case as this is, it's do or die for them now to try and stop both Barr and Durham.

So extortion is only illegal if it works?

This is your new argument?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You didn't answer my question.

The line on Biden's corruption was that he extorted the Ukrainian govt to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.

Now you're saying there was never an investigation and the "corruption" is because
"Crackhead" Hunter Biden landed a lucrative job?

Trump said it was about the investigationand the firing. So which is it?

What Trump asked for was for Ukraine to look into it to see if there was anything there. Trump released the money before any investigation even started, and there was still no investigation that we are aware of today.

What Slow Joe did was a quid pro quo, and there's nothing illegal about it unless it did have something to do with his son. Again, that's what Trump was asking Zelensky about. He wants to see if there is indeed a connection, because an energy company just doesn't pay somebody millions of dollars for nothing. Hunter got the job when his father was the US VP.

Given the fact Zelensky nor anybody in the Ukraine government even knew about the hold on US aid until a month after the phone call, tells us that whatever Trump said, Zelensky didn't take as a threat, because he knew nothing about money on hold. That's one of the many reasons this impeachment is a compete farce.

Yes but you're saying now there was never an investigation. So Trump's claim that there was corruption in Biden working to sack the prosecutor to save his son from an investigation was wrong? Or are you wrong?

You seem confused as your explanations are spreading beyond the known facts of what Trump stated in his call.

First of all, Trump only asked Zelensky "to look into it" as a favor, not to conduct an official investigation. Secondly, because there was no investigation, that destroys the Democrats claim of quid pro quo. That's why they aborted it and started to use "bribery" as their new charge.

If Trump's attempt was to issue a quid pro quo, he wouldn't' have released the money until he got something in return. Instead, he released the money anyway.

Don't forget they threw in EXTORTION between quid pro quo and bribery.

These bat shit crazy, lunatic demtrash change the game faster than we can keep up with.

I think today they're hoping the bitch cries. That ought to do it... the president made me cry because he fired me... WHAAAAAA, WHAAA. I'm SURE they'll be able to impeach the president on... HE MADE ME CRY.

Well I guess I should make the case for Blackmail. Yep that's what ol'Trumpybear did. He tried to Blackmail that president into publicly announcing that the Ukraine was opening an investingation into the Bidens corruption.

Blackmail I tells ya.

Doesn't matter what you call it. The turd still stinks.

Blackmail is when you have something damaging about a person, and threaten to release that information unless your demands are met. And when did Trump ever ask Zelensky to make anything public?

 

[BluesLegend]

President Trump has every right to FIRE any ambassador for any reason he so chooses. Especially ambassador's stabbing the president in the back, undermining the president's foreign policy which he has a Constitutional right to set. This is not a debate or a negotiation, the State Dept and these appointees work for Trump. The State department is not a separate branch of government, president Trump is their boss.

So Trump has the right to fire an ambassador that won't go along with his extortion scheme. I get it.

President Trump has the right to fire an ambassador for any reason idiot. An authority granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What Trump asked for was for Ukraine to look into it to see if there was anything there. Trump released the money before any investigation even started, and there was still no investigation that we are aware of today.

What Slow Joe did was a quid pro quo, and there's nothing illegal about it unless it did have something to do with his son. Again, that's what Trump was asking Zelensky about. He wants to see if there is indeed a connection, because an energy company just doesn't pay somebody millions of dollars for nothing. Hunter got the job when his father was the US VP.

Given the fact Zelensky nor anybody in the Ukraine government even knew about the hold on US aid until a month after the phone call, tells us that whatever Trump said, Zelensky didn't take as a threat, because he knew nothing about money on hold. That's one of the many reasons this impeachment is a compete farce.

Yes but you're saying now there was never an investigation. So Trump's claim that there was corruption in Biden working to sack the prosecutor to save his son from an investigation was wrong? Or are you wrong?

You seem confused as your explanations are spreading beyond the known facts of what Trump stated in his call.

First of all, Trump only asked Zelensky "to look into it" as a favor, not to conduct an official investigation. Secondly, because there was no investigation, that destroys the Democrats claim of quid pro quo. That's why they aborted it and started to use "bribery" as their new charge.

If Trump's attempt was to issue a quid pro quo, he wouldn't' have released the money until he got something in return. Instead, he released the money anyway.

No. Bribery is the ask whether it's ultimately delivered or not. Trump released the money because the WB exposed their scheme.

You still did not answer the question. Was there an investigation or not?

I answered that question several times: to our knowledge, there was no investigation.

If the Democrats wanted to prove that there was bribery or a quid pro quo, they wouldn't have came out this quickly with the whistleblowers claim. They would have given it time until Trump DID get something in return. But as I stated in my last post, they are extremely desperate now that Barr and Durham are exposing what happened in the last administration. As weak of a case as this is, it's do or die for them now to try and stop both Barr and Durham.

So extortion is only illegal if it works?

This is your new argument?

No, extortion is illegal when it actually happens. That didn't happen here, and there was no attempt at it either.

 

[The Purge]

So impeachment supporters. Where is today's 'devastating' evidence? What 'bombshell' has this witness?

You mean the FORMER AMBASSADOR WHO CRIES was FIRED IN MAY, 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE PHONE CALL, ADMITS SHE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT IY, BUT HER FEELINGS WERE HURT...THAT BIMBO?,