Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Hamilton 68 (a project of The Alliance for Securing Democracy) is the epitome of McCarthyism.
And, just for fun - guess who else REALLY likes to cite Sean Hannity and defend Trump from "Russiagate" investigations?
...
Hannity’s website ranked among the top 10 shared by the network of Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence campaigns and tracked by the nonpartisan Alliance for Securing Democracy on its national security project, the Hamilton 68 dashboard. Hannity content had not registered much previously—but since December 20, links from Hannity’s site have appeared frequently on the dashboard, often ranking among the top 10. “It’s now up there with other top most-shared domains,” says Bret Schafer, an analyst who monitors the dashboard for the Alliance.
It monitors "Russian influenced" campaigns based on a list of 600 "Russian-linked" Twitter accounts.
But the list of those Twitter accounts is a secret. Hamilton 68 refuses to divulge it.
This is Joe McCarthy's secret list of communists reincarnated.
http://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/publications/methodology-hamilton-68-dashboard
That's a terrible analogy. You know that there are twitter accounts linked to Russian influence campaigns, so the analogy to fictitious claims of Communists doesn't work. "Hamilton 68" says that "We are not willing to publicly attribute even one specific account incorrectly", and obviously that does not mean that none exist (again, as opposed to McCarthy keeping secret names which didn't actually exist).
Also, McCarthy's specific claim was “I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.” That's pretty specific, 205 out of the known number of State Department employees. He also said the Secretary of State knew that they were members. That is definitely not the same as stating that out of over 300 million users, there were 600 linked to Russia influence campaigns. One would have to be pretty innumerate to think those two scenarios were the same.
Exaggerating the role of the dossier doesn't help your argument, Paul.
Can we merge this thread with the flu thread? There's a ton of overlap.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Hamilton 68 (a project of The Alliance for Securing Democracy) is the epitome of McCarthyism.
And, just for fun - guess who else REALLY likes to cite Sean Hannity and defend Trump from "Russiagate" investigations?
...
Hannity’s website ranked among the top 10 shared by the network of Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence campaigns and tracked by the nonpartisan Alliance for Securing Democracy on its national security project, the Hamilton 68 dashboard. Hannity content had not registered much previously—but since December 20, links from Hannity’s site have appeared frequently on the dashboard, often ranking among the top 10. “It’s now up there with other top most-shared domains,” says Bret Schafer, an analyst who monitors the dashboard for the Alliance.
It monitors "Russian influenced" campaigns based on a list of 600 "Russian-linked" Twitter accounts.
But the list of those Twitter accounts is a secret. Hamilton 68 refuses to divulge it.
This is Joe McCarthy's secret list of communists reincarnated.
http://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/publications/methodology-hamilton-68-dashboard
That's a terrible analogy. You know that there are twitter accounts linked to Russian influence campaigns, so the analogy to fictitious claims of Communists doesn't work. "Hamilton 68" says that "We are not willing to publicly attribute even one specific account incorrectly", and obviously that does not mean that none exist (again, as opposed to McCarthy keeping secret names which didn't actually exist).
Also, McCarthy's specific claim was “I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.” That's pretty specific, 205 out of the known number of State Department employees. He also said the Secretary of State knew that they were members. That is definitely not the same as stating that out of over 300 million users, there were 600 linked to Russia influence campaigns. One would have to be pretty innumerate to think those two scenarios were the same.
Honestly, even though you've defended a campaign of evidence-free allegations for 18 months, I'm surprised that you choose to defend a system that admits that its allegations are based on secret information and is impossible to verify.
Well maybe just a little surprised.
A great analysis by prof Stephen Cohen on what is known about Russiagate with hypotheses of why and how it happened, focusing on the roles of Steele, the FBI and the CIA.
paulsurovell said:
A great analysis by prof Stephen Cohen on what is known about Russiagate with hypotheses of why and how it happened, focusing on the roles of Steele, the FBI and the CIA.
https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-or-intelgate/
It's an excellent example of exaggerating the role of Steele's work that I mentioned above.
"Steele’s dossier, which alleged that Trump had been compromised by the Kremlin in various ways for several years even preceding his presidential candidacy, was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative..."
The dossier did not "allege" that Trump was compromised. It was a collection of raw, unverified info that concerned him enough to alert the FBI. It was not a finished product.
Calling it the "foundational document of the Russiagate narrative" is, when you break it down, a meaningless term meant to revise history and suggest coordinated efforts to tell a story. (Though maybe when the White Hats aren't busy slaughtering innocent Syrians they are writing this narrative, right?)
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
A great analysis by prof Stephen Cohen on what is known about Russiagate with hypotheses of why and how it happened, focusing on the roles of Steele, the FBI and the CIA.
https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-or-intelgate/
It's an excellent example of exaggerating the role of Steele's work that I mentioned above.
"Steele’s dossier, which alleged that Trump had been compromised by the Kremlin in various ways for several years even preceding his presidential candidacy, was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative..."
The dossier did not "allege" that Trump was compromised. It was a collection of raw, unverified info that concerned him enough to alert the FBI. It was not a finished product.
Calling it the "foundational document of the Russiagate narrative" is, when you break it down, a meaningless term meant to revise history and suggest coordinated efforts to tell a story. (Though maybe when the White Hats aren't busy slaughtering innocent Syrians they are writing this narrative, right?)
Not to mention the fact that Cohen's version would mean that Steele has time-travel skills, since intelligence about Russia and Trump was being exchanged even before the time Steele was hired and started his work.
Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.
Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Honestly, even though you've defended a campaign of evidence-free allegations for 18 months, I'm surprised that you choose to defend a system that admits that its allegations are based on secret information and is impossible to verify.
paulsurovell said:That's a terrible analogy. You know that there are twitter accounts linked to Russian influence campaigns, so the analogy to fictitious claims of Communists doesn't work. "Hamilton 68" says that "We are not willing to publicly attribute even one specific account incorrectly", and obviously that does not mean that none exist (again, as opposed to McCarthy keeping secret names which didn't actually exist).
Hamilton 68 (a project of The Alliance for Securing Democracy) is the epitome of McCarthyism.
It monitors "Russian influenced" campaigns based on a list of 600 "Russian-linked" Twitter accounts.
But the list of those Twitter accounts is a secret. Hamilton 68 refuses to divulge it.
This is Joe McCarthy's secret list of communists reincarnated.
http://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/publications/methodology-hamilton-68-dashboard
Also, McCarthy's specific claim was “I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.” That's pretty specific, 205 out of the known number of State Department employees. He also said the Secretary of State knew that they were members. That is definitely not the same as stating that out of over 300 million users, there were 600 linked to Russia influence campaigns. One would have to be pretty innumerate to think those two scenarios were the same.
Well maybe just a little surprised.
I guess you didn't like the "innumerate" suggestion. Too bad. If you don't like the Hannity comparisons, you should stop with the mischaracterizations like that in your response.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Honestly, even though you've defended a campaign of evidence-free allegations for 18 months, I'm surprised that you choose to defend a system that admits that its allegations are based on secret information and is impossible to verify.
paulsurovell said:That's a terrible analogy. You know that there are twitter accounts linked to Russian influence campaigns, so the analogy to fictitious claims of Communists doesn't work. "Hamilton 68" says that "We are not willing to publicly attribute even one specific account incorrectly", and obviously that does not mean that none exist (again, as opposed to McCarthy keeping secret names which didn't actually exist).
Hamilton 68 (a project of The Alliance for Securing Democracy) is the epitome of McCarthyism.
It monitors "Russian influenced" campaigns based on a list of 600 "Russian-linked" Twitter accounts.
But the list of those Twitter accounts is a secret. Hamilton 68 refuses to divulge it.
This is Joe McCarthy's secret list of communists reincarnated.
http://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/publications/methodology-hamilton-68-dashboard
Also, McCarthy's specific claim was “I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.” That's pretty specific, 205 out of the known number of State Department employees. He also said the Secretary of State knew that they were members. That is definitely not the same as stating that out of over 300 million users, there were 600 linked to Russia influence campaigns. One would have to be pretty innumerate to think those two scenarios were the same.
Well maybe just a little surprised.
I guess you didn't like the "innumerate" suggestion. Too bad. If you don't like the Hannity comparisons, you should stop with the mischaracterizations like that in your response.
You are defending the accuracy of a system that is based on secret information that is impossible to verify.
Fits the definition of a useful idiot.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:You are defending the accuracy of a system that is based on secret information that is impossible to verify.
I guess you didn't like the "innumerate" suggestion. Too bad. If you don't like the Hannity comparisons, you should stop with the mischaracterizations like that in your response.
Fits the definition of a useful idiot.
Who are you calling "useful"? In any event, repeating your twisted version of the facts, etc.
Why do you keep saying "evidence-free"? There's plenty of evidence:
Manafort's employment by Russian interests in the Ukraine
Trump Jr.'s admitted meetings with Russian operatives to get dirt on Hillary
Papadapoulos' admitted dealings with Russians
Trump Corp's involvement with Russian financing in Soho and elsewhere
Trump's refusal to apply sanctions to Russia
The RNC's removal of a pro-Ukraine plank in the 2016 platform
Proven Russian bots' influence in social media
Putin's well-known anti-Hillary and pro-Trump bias
Approaches to Carter Page by Russian intelligence operatives
Trump's desire to build in Moscow while needing Russian money and government approvals
Accounts of Russian government officials' responses to Trump's election
This is evidence, defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
Here is more evidence:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/when-putin-asked-for-help-on-sanctions-trump-listened
The Magnitsky Act was a topic of conversation at the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between top campaign staff and Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-linked lawyer.
Maria Butina, a top aide to the Russian central banker Alexander Torshin, asked Trump to lift sanctions during ... a libertarian conference in Las Vegas in July 2015. Trump interrupted Butina’s question to praise Putin and say he wanted better relations with the country.
In July 2016, Trump advisor Carter Page visited Moscow where he discussed the ways lifting sanctions would be “advantageous” to a Russian state oil company.
Sergey Kislyak, then Russian ambassador to the U.S., called Michael Flynn to discuss the Obama administration’s December 2016 sanctions expelling Russian diplomats.... Flynn asked Kisylak not to retaliate for those sanctions, suggesting the incoming Trump administration would undermine them.
The Trump Campaign in July 2016 gutted the GOP platform’s hardline position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Trump dragged his feet on implementing the new sanctions law. His administration released the list of 39 businesses nearly a month after an October 2017 deadline had passed. And on January 29 of this year, a day before the list of persons was due, the State Department announced it wouldn’t release one, saying the threat of punishment was punishment enough.
The list was released the same week that three Russian intelligence officials — one of them himself under U.S. sanctions — were reported to have met with CIA director Mike Pompeo in the U.S.
The same day, the Treasury released a list of Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin, as required by the law. But it didn’t sanction them ...Treasury turned out to have cribbed the list from Forbes.
I think Paul owes us an explanation for Trump's behavior towards Russia. Because it's beyond bizarre, even for him.
Tom,
I usually say "evidence-free" in reference to allegations that (a) the Russian govt hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and (b) the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian govt to influence the 2016 election.
Your list includes evidence of contacts and relationships with Russians or Ukrainians, and attitudes toward Russia or Ukraine, but none of them involve acts of collusion with the Russian govt to influence the 2016 election.
The closest that any of your examples comes to collusion with the Russian govt is the Trump Tower meeting, which showed an interest by top Trump campaign officials to collude by obtaining dirt on Hillary, but no exchange of dirt occurred, so it's an example of potential collusion.
On the other hand, Hillary did receive dirt on Trump from Russian govt officials through a contractor's dossier and from Ukrainian govt officials through a consultant's efforts.
I made the following point on the third day of this thread (July 13, 2017):
paulsurovell said:
I see nothing illegal in Hillary's collusion with Ukraine govt and Russian govt officials. It's not illegal to get dirt on a political opponent from a foreign govt.
Likewise, I see nothing illegal in Don Jr.'s expression of interest in getting dirt on a political opponent, in response to an email from a British music publicist.
My point in comparing Hillary's actual collusion and Trump's interest in collusion is mostly to show the dishonesty of the media and the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are pushing the evidence-free "collusion" allegations against Trump as part of a campaign for a new Cold War with Russia.
Regarding your example of "Papadapoulos dealings with Russians." This may have the appearance of collusion, because a Maltese professor who had connections with Russian officials told Papadapoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary (thousands of her emails). However, there is no suggestion in the emails of the Trump campaign or in the Papadapoulos plea agreement that Papadapoulos communicated that conversation with the Trump campaign. Papadapoulos' emailed the campaign about conversations he had with Russian officials to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin, but the campaign rejected the proposal.
Papadapoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the timing of his conversation with the Maltese professor, but there is nothing in the plea agreement about collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian govt to influence the election.
Here's the plea agreement, it's worth a read:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download
tom said:
Why do you keep saying "evidence-free"? There's plenty of evidence:
Manafort's employment by Russian interests in the Ukraine
Trump Jr.'s admitted meetings with Russian operatives to get dirt on Hillary
Papadapoulos' admitted dealings with Russians
Trump Corp's involvement with Russian financing in Soho and elsewhere
Trump's refusal to apply sanctions to Russia
The RNC's removal of a pro-Ukraine plank in the 2016 platform
Proven Russian bots' influence in social media
Putin's well-known anti-Hillary and pro-Trump bias
Approaches to Carter Page by Russian intelligence operatives
Trump's desire to build in Moscow while needing Russian money and government approvals
Accounts of Russian government officials' responses to Trump's election
This is evidence, defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
tom said:
Here is more evidence:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/when-putin-asked-for-help-on-sanctions-trump-listened
The Magnitsky Act was a topic of conversation at the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between top campaign staff and Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-linked lawyer.
Maria Butina, a top aide to the Russian central banker Alexander Torshin, asked Trump to lift sanctions during ... a libertarian conference in Las Vegas in July 2015. Trump interrupted Butina’s question to praise Putin and say he wanted better relations with the country.
In July 2016, Trump advisor Carter Page visited Moscow where he discussed the ways lifting sanctions would be “advantageous” to a Russian state oil company.
Sergey Kislyak, then Russian ambassador to the U.S., called Michael Flynn to discuss the Obama administration’s December 2016 sanctions expelling Russian diplomats.... Flynn asked Kisylak not to retaliate for those sanctions, suggesting the incoming Trump administration would undermine them.
The Trump Campaign in July 2016 gutted the GOP platform’s hardline position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Trump dragged his feet on implementing the new sanctions law. His administration released the list of 39 businesses nearly a month after an October 2017 deadline had passed. And on January 29 of this year, a day before the list of persons was due, the State Department announced it wouldn’t release one, saying the threat of punishment was punishment enough.
The list was released the same week that three Russian intelligence officials — one of them himself under U.S. sanctions — were reported to have met with CIA director Mike Pompeo in the U.S.
The same day, the Treasury released a list of Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin, as required by the law. But it didn’t sanction them ...Treasury turned out to have cribbed the list from Forbes.
So then [wave hands] ipso facto the investigation should end. That what you're saying?
drummerboy said:
I think Paul owes us an explanation for Trump's behavior towards Russia. Because it's beyond bizarre, even for him.
Trump has endorsed a nuclear strategy that is "more aggressive" toward Russia, he has approved lethal weapons to Ukraine, he has allowed the takeover of Russian diplomatic facilities in the US and the registration of RT as a foreign agent, he's approved a military role in Syria toward overthrowing Putin ally Assad including a recent attack on Assad's troops, he's approved numerous US military exercises near the Russian border. Today he signaled support for a potential conflagration between Israel, Syria, Iran and Lebanon in which Russian troops could be killed. And with Democratic support he'll sign a record military budget.
In short, Trump has embraced the neocon, military-industrial Cold War agenda. Russiagate1 continues because (a) it is still needed to inflame the population against Russia to support the above policies (b) the Dems are on autopilot and besides, they want to delegitimize the election and (c) Trump has crossed lines with the Intel Community that will not be forgiven.
Lindsey Graham, the ultimate warmonger, has jumped off the Russiagate1 train in response to Trump's warmongering policies above. He is now on the Russiagate2 train which focuses on corruption of the DOJ/FBI and the role of the Hillary campaign/DNC in the bogus Steele dossier and the manufacturing of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. It's called blowback.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
I think Paul owes us an explanation for Trump's behavior towards Russia. Because it's beyond bizarre, even for him.
Trump has endorsed a nuclear strategy that is "more aggressive" toward Russia, he has approved lethal weapons to Ukraine, he has allowed the takeover of Russian diplomatic facilities in the US and the registration of RT as a foreign agent, he's approved a military role in Syria toward overthrowing Putin ally Assad including a recent attack on Assad's troops,
I thought we were working with Russia against ISIS.
After 10,000 posts, I still want to know whether Russia has interfered, or has tried to interfere, with our elections. After 10,000 posts, I'm still not sure. The picture is cloudy; FBI/DOJ, being in mid investigation(s), doesn't show all of their cards so we don't know. The information vacuum is filled by speculation and hyperbole, usually partisan in nature,
I think there's a broad backward logic to your take on all of this, which is (a) warlike posturing is bad and dangerous (mostly true) (b) Russiagate encourages warlike posturing against Russia (true), ergo (c) Russiagate must be false (UNKNOWN, TBD).
tom said:
So then [wave hands] ipso facto the investigation should end. That what you're saying?
We need a Truth and Reconciliation with Russia Commission.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:I thought we were working with Russia against ISIS.
drummerboy said:Trump has endorsed a nuclear strategy that is "more aggressive" toward Russia, he has approved lethal weapons to Ukraine, he has allowed the takeover of Russian diplomatic facilities in the US and the registration of RT as a foreign agent, he's approved a military role in Syria toward overthrowing Putin ally Assad including a recent attack on Assad's troops,
I think Paul owes us an explanation for Trump's behavior towards Russia. Because it's beyond bizarre, even for him.
There's been a shift
bub said:
I think there's a broad backward logic to your take on all of this, which is (a) warlike posturing is bad and dangerous (mostly true) (b) Russiagate encourages warlike posturing against Russia (true), ergo (c) Russiagate must be false (UNKNOWN, TBD).
This is my read too, which is why I'm trying to resist getting drawn into further debate with Paul -- given this logic, I think that questions of fact are far less important to him than trying to discourage negative/hostile attitudes toward Russia. Whether he actually believes allegations against Trump and Putin are false I honestly don't know, but my conclusion is that he also doesn't particularly care.
One thing that still puzzles me regarding his position, though, is what, if any, responsibility does he assign Russia in avoiding hostilities? His posts are very US-centric -- I can't tell if he believes that Russia has never committed any hostile acts toward the US (he consistently dismisses reports of hostile Russian actions as being unverified, for instance) and see US-Russian hostility as purely the fault of the US, or if he simply finds the question of Russian actions irrelevant. I'd be curious on this question not just with the current circumstance, but historically too. He often speaks of a fear of a "new cold war," but what is his understanding of the actual Cold War? Does he acknowledge that the USSR was at least as responsible for that confrontation as the US, or does he see the history of US-Russia/USSR interactions as one of of unmerited, unprovoked hostility by the US?
What PVW said and
paulsurovell said:
We need a Truth and Reconciliation with Russia Commission.
Does Russia need a Truth and Reconciliation with USA Commission and how is either Commission possible with Putin in control of Russia?
paulsurovell said:
There's been a shift
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-tillerson/u-s-signals-open-ended-presence-in-syria-seeks-patience-on-assads-removal-idUSKBN1F62R8
I don't find Tillerson's "policy" very clear but more importantly I have no idea whether Trump agrees with that policy or what the policy will be next week.
Such commissions are for countries emerging from long periods of repression, including repression of the truth. The ideas favored by Paul have never been repressed, and the facts underlying those ideas are not secret. Sanctions, expanding NATO, U.S. military policies - they're all out there in the open to be debated and they are debated. I'm sure Paul would like a Kommissar to issue a final binding declaration of the Truth (as he sees it, of course) but that's not how we do things.
I also don't see "reconciliation" with a repressive kleptocracy being in the cards. We need to be wise and measured in our policies toward Russia but reconciliation? Don't think so.
Today's Russiagate "bombshell:"
Trump sold a mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, and during the campaign the oligarch's plane was spotted in the same airports where Trump was campaigning on two occasions.
Senator Wyden wants the records of the deal.
Scary stuff, even though it's an old story.
Edited to Add: I forgot to mention that Trump bought the mansion for $41 million and sold it for $95 million four years later, something unheard of in real estate deals.
paulsurovell said:
Today's Russiagate "bombshell:"
Trump sold a mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, and during the campaign the oligarch's plane was spotted in the same airports where Trump was campaigning on two occasions.
Senator Wyden wants the records of the deal.
Scary stuff, even though it's an old story.
Edited to Add: I forgot to mention that Trump bought the mansion for $41 million and sold it for $95 million four years later, something unheard of in real estate deals.
Yes it is an old story. But value doubling in 4 years is common, right?
Waiting for a response to PVW's post. Post about Wyden is a distraction.
Trump is a genius. Not like those losers who were losing value on their houses in 2008.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Yes it is an old story. But value doubling in 4 years is common, right?
Edited to Add: I forgot to mention that Trump bought the mansion for $41 million and sold it for $95 million four years later, something unheard of in real estate deals.
Shocking, isn't it?
cramer said:
Waiting for a response to PVW's post. Post about Wyden is a distraction.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
No idea what Hamilton 68 is but it ain't the "epitome of McCarthyism." McCarthy was a U.S. Senator with power who openly attacked citizens and caused them to be blacklisted or lose jobs. What is Hamilton 68? A private web site with an agenda, among countless others, that is beating the Russiagate theme, which you hate, but has caused actual damage to . . . who? Has anyone lost a job, been blacklisted, or even had a Twitter account suspended (and big deal re the latter "injury"; you open another account one under a different name)?
You really are Mr. hyperbole.