Category: Andrew Breitbart

A jolly inspirational fellow.

The Unexpected Heroine Lyndsey Fifield

Posted on Comments

When the story broke Thursday, I was stunned. The ex-girlfriend of Graham Platner featured in the lengthy New York Times story was someone I’ve known since 2010. I spent most of the afternoon calling and texting friends who also knew her, and they were similarly surprised.

Did any of us who knew Lyndsey back in the day, when she was fresh out of college and just trying to break into the world of politics, imagine that her name would become nationally known as the “Republican operative” whose tales of an abusive relationship with a D.C. bartender might tip the balance of the U.S. Senate? No. No, we never imagined this.

As I explained earlier this week, anyone who was paying attention knew that the opposition research file on Platner was voluminous, so that we could expect new scandalous revelations every week from now until November, presuming Platner didn’t quit before then. What I did not expect was that someone I’d known for more than 15 years would be the source for one of those revelations. In fact, it appears, it was Lyndsey who first got the word out about Platner’s Totenkopf tattoo, months ago. She related in a long thread on X Friday that she did not want to “come forward” about her 2013-2015 relationship with Platner, when she was working for the Chamber of Commerce. At the time, Platner was working as a bartender at the Tune Inn on Capitol Hill, a so-called “dive bar” popular with congressional staffers. The relationship was traumatic for Lyndsey, who describes Platner as a “narcissistic abuser.”

Fortunately, Lyndsey later met a nice guy, married him, and now has two young daughters. She is widely known and respected in D.C. political circles and is certainly not any kind of “MAGA extremist,” having worked in 2023 for Nikki Haley’s primary campaign against Trump. In fact, Lyndsey has explained, her husband is a liberal. She was asked on X why she ever dated Platner and explained that, in the pre-Trump era, the dating scene in D.C. was much more “bipartisan.” Although people tended to date within their own political camps, young singles in the capital (Lyndsey was 27 when she started dating Platner) weren’t litmus-testing potential partners. As Lyndsey has said, she was shocked when her ex-boyfriend became a Senate candidate in Maine, and felt a duty to do something, even though she didn’t want to get publicly involved. She’s a suburban wife and mom who doesn’t need that kind of attention. However, staffers for the New York Times somehow got her phone number — I’ll give you three guesses how, and the first two don’t count — and persuaded Lyndsey to cooperate with their plans for a story.

My friend Will Upton, who likewise has known Lyndsey for years, has an excellent story in the Daily Caller explaining the “soft catch-and-kill” strategy of which this New York Times story is a perfect example:

The term ‘catch and kill‘ refers to a shady practice where a public relations firm or consultant works with a friendly news outlet that was pitched or ‘stumbled’ upon a negative story about a client to effectively ‘catch’ and then ‘kill’ the story — or delay it until it no longer has impact.
A ‘soft catch and kill’ works similarly, though it mostly involves the publication still running the story in a timely manner, but the details are softened or buried deep in the narrative to soften the bite. The outlet can claim it did its job, but they’ve given the target just enough wiggle room to survive.
The Times’s goal here was not to fairly give hearing to allegations against Platner; it was to play Fifield for a sucker, give her story just enough air that the Democrat Party’s cretin media and consultant class could zero in on it and crush it.

Lyndsey is very much leaning on her Christian faith to help her survive the predictable onslaught of attacks. Among these attacks is what Debra Saunders has called “a long guilty-by-association tweet” from Ryan Grim of Drop Site News. This is actually an answered prayer for Lyndsey, because one of the items that Grim cites is a 2016 interview with Red Alert Politics, when she was named to their “30 Under 30” list. It’s impossible now to find that interview online (Red Alert Politics got bought out by the Washington Examiner, and most of its former content has disappeared), but Grim somehow got a copy of it. And in that interview, talking about her career goals, Lyndsey described her desire to “emulate the late conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s approach to online activism.” Dear reader, Lyndsey Fifield knew Andrew.

It was in New Orleans, in April 2010, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) that Andrew Breitbart and Lyndsey were hanging out. You can see her reaction to one of Andrew’s stories about his undergraduate days as a student at Tulane University. The guy in the background, second from left, is Dave Weigel, who was covering the SRLC for the Washington Post. After Lyndsey became suddenly famous Thursday, I checked my archives and found those pictures in my April 11, 2010, post, “Breitbart Party Voodoo.” (Breitbart was telling us, “I don’t believe in voodoo anywhere else, but in New Orleans? It’s real!”)

Did I have any clue at the time that 24-year-old Lyndsey Fifield would one day make headlines? No way. She was just some silly girl fresh out of college, but I have to admit that I’m getting a bit choked up while writing this. She has shown such courage and, Lyndsey, if you’re reading this, please just know: Andrew would be so proud of you!

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!



 

May 27: A Date That Will Live in Hilarity

Posted on

Anthony Weiner — hacking victim?

Big hat-tip to Ace of Spades for reminding us that it was on this date — May 27, 2011 — that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) used his official Twitter account to send a photo of his . . . pelvic bulge, and then claimed that his account had been hacked. Wikipedia:

On May 27, 2011, Weiner used his public Twitter account to send a link to a photo on yfrog. The picture of his erect penis concealed by boxer briefs[ was sent to a 21-year-old female college student from Seattle, Washington, who was following his posts on the social media website.[8] Though the link was quickly removed from Weiner’s Twitter account, screen shots of Weiner’s original message and of the photo were captured by a user identified as “Dan Wolfe” on Twitter and subsequently sent to blogger Andrew Breitbart who published them on his BigGovernment website the following day. CNN described it as a “lewd photograph” of a “man bulge in … underwear”.
On June 1, 2011, Weiner gave a series of interviews in which he denied sending the photo and suggested that someone, perhaps a political opponent, had hacked into his accounts and published the photo.

Memories light the corners of my mind . . .

Yeah, I don’t need Wikipedia to tell me how that went down, because I was living through it every minute, starting on May 28, and continuing through dozens of blog posts up until Weiner resigned June 16.

Of course, working in “file-it-and-forget-it” mode, as is my habit, the details had blurred in my memory. Like, I’d completely forgotten the name Gennette Nicole Cordova, the Seattle-area student who was the intended recipient of Weiner’s crotch photo. In hindsight, obviously, we know what happened — Weiner meant to send her that photo as a DM, but somehow fat-fingered it, so that instead it was a public tweet.

At the time — the fateful tweet went out late at night on the Friday before Memorial Day that year — I was trying to figure out if there could be some kind of innocent explanation, for example, the possibility that one of Weiner’s staffers, with access to his account, had accidentally sent the photo. And I remember calling up Andrew Breitbart to discuss this with him. Andrew’s response was blunt: “No, Stacy. Trust me — there’s more.”

What I didn’t know at that time was that, about a week earlier, someone had sent an email to Breitbart’s tip line, saying that they had also received lewd photos from Weiner. That email was from a woman who lived in Texas, and after the “Weinergate” story broke on May 27, Breitbart went back and saw this email, and reached out to the woman. Unfortunately, she had gone off on a long weekend camping trip — completely out of touch — so they could not immediately get confirmation. In other words, Breitbart and his team knew for a fact that Gennette Cordova wasn’t the only woman Weiner had been “sexting” with, but until the Texas woman returned from her camping trip, they couldn’t prove it. So there were several days of uncertainty, during which time Democrats sought to defend Weiner by demonizing Breitbart. Oh, it was crazy!

June 6, 2011 — the Weinergate avalanche

June 6 was the big breakthrough, when the Texas woman, an Army veteran and single mom named Meagan Broussard, told her story on Breitbart’s site. The same day, Anthony Weiner announced a press conference in New York. Weiner was late to the press conference, but Andrew Breitbart was there on time, so the assembled media demanded that Breitbart answer questions — upstaging the congressman:

 

The vindication of a genius, is what it was. When Weiner finally spoke at that June 6 press conference, he defended himself by saying that while his behavior was “inappropriate,” it was “consensual,” and he insisted that he would not be resigning. So then we had another 10 days of it — Democrats trying to see if they could leverage their media allies to spin the “rising star” congressman out of his jam, until at last they were compelled to admit it was hopeless, and he resigned June 16.

That very day, it so happened, I had to fly out of Dulles Airport to Minneapolis for the Right Online conference, and guess who I found “holding court” in the lobby of the Minneapolis Hilton?

 

Good times, my friends. Andrew died less than a year later, and it was an irreparable loss. There has never been anyone like him, and he was at the absolute peak of his fame then. All we have left are memories.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

UPDATE II: By the way, it was past 2 a.m. when I conducted that brief video interview with Andrew Breitbart in the lobby of the Minneapolis Hilton. While I was flying to Minneapolis, Weiner was announcing his resignation, so as soon as I got to the hotel, I started blazing away on my column for the American Spectator:

By the time Weiner gave his resignation speech Thursday in New York, he was such a pariah that even his political mentor, Sen. Charles Schumer, would not even speak publicly in his defense, instead issuing a brief statement wishing Weiner well. . . .
[T]he digital images that defined the scandal known as WeinerGate left little to the imagination. There was also a transcript of Weiner’s sexually explicit Facebook exchanges with Las Vegas blackjack dealer Lisa Weiss, and the fact that Weiner’s Twitter correspondents included both a blonde porn star and a 17-year-old high school girl with a penchant for freely employing the F-word in her online communications.
In retrospect, it is possible to see Friday, June 11, as the day on which it became clear that Weiner was doomed. The scandal had begun two weeks earlier — late on the evening of Friday, May 27 — when Weiner sent a lewd photo of his crotch as a Twitter message addressed to a 21-year-old college student from Seattle. While Weiner first attempted to explain this as the work of “hackers” or a “prank,” further revelations forced the congressman to call a June 6 press conference where he admitted the truth: He had meant to send that photo as a private message and by a simple error had sent it publicly to the more than 40,000 people following his Twitter account. At that press conference, Weiner confessed to having carried on a half-dozen “online relationships” with women, but vowed he would not resign.
That vow became non-operational June 11, when police in Delaware showed up at the home of Weiner’s teenage Twitter correspondent. Although police said they found no evidence of criminality, and Weiner said there was nothing “indecent” in his private Twitter exchanges with the teen, the very fact that he had been in communication with her was disturbing. In light of what was already known about Weiner’s other “online relationships,” talking dirty and sending pictures of his penis to women he’d never met, for him to have a 17-year-old among his Internet contacts… well, it just looked bad. Within 24 hours, three top Democrats — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, both of whom had previously defended Weiner — called for his resignation. . . .

You can read the rest of that, in case you’d forgotten. But it explains why, when I began recording that interview with Andrew, he asked, “Did you hit your deadline?” Yeah, man, I sure did.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

The Ghost of Andrew Breitbart

Posted on

Breitbart.com editor Joel Pollak calls attention to an article in the Federalist, explaining how it was that the late Andrew Breitbart made conservatives aware of Critical Race Theory:

Critical race theory has blossomed in the United States into a culture war between institutions and those they purport to serve. As usual, legacy media have colluded to delegitimize any objections by either minimizing the dogma, re-defining it, or denying its existence. Americans ought to consider the media’s frenzy to smear writers exposing CRT in 2012 when examining the reality of today.
After Andrew Breitbart indicated at the Conservative Political Action Conference that he had footage to substantiate that President Barack Obama maintained a relationship with a prominent critical race theorist, it led to a news storm.
Breitbart’s fiery speech led to a now all-too-familiar CRT battle between two opposing media forces. Breitbart.com released footage of Obama speaking at a diversity protest in support of a professor named Derrick Bell, whom the outlet’s former editor Ben Shapiro referred to in an explainer column as “the father of Critical Race Theory (CRT).” Heritage Foundation fellow Mike Gonzalez told me in an email he is more like the “godfather” of CRT.
Bell, a Harvard University Law professor at the time, was overwhelmingly defended by left-leaning pundits, as was Obama. If you can picture it, and hopefully you can given how investigative journalist Christopher Rufo and others have been treated by media today, Breitbart’s writers were lambasted as conspiracy theorists.
Joel Pollak, the editor-in-chief at the time and now the current Breitbart editor-at-large, was implicitly called racist on CNN by host Soledad O’Brien, a “smear artist” in The New Yorker, and told in The Nation he was unreasonably rebuking “intellectual leaders in a long tradition of calling on America to address racial unfairness.” . . .

Read the whole thing. The point is that nine years ago — long before CRT was turning school-board meetings into riots — Breitbart saw in Obama’s defense of Derrick Bell an indicator of where the country was heading. And, as usual, the Democrat-Media Complex (as Breitbart called it) was spinning like crazy, trying to convince their audience that there was no real controversy. Andrew was truly prophetic in his vision.




 

Why Is Breitbart #Winning?

Posted on

 

More than 3,000 journalists lost their jobs this year. Liberals are mystified why a conservative news site is defying the trend:

Breitbart News Network’s Facebook page has captured more engagement than several of the largest corporate news outlets combined amid the ongoing impeachment battle, a VICE News report revealed Monday.
VICE News reports:

With just 4 million followers, Breitbart’s page racked up more likes, comments, and shares since Sept. 1 (57.8 million) than The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today combined (42.6 million). It outpaced each of the broadcast news networks, MSNBC, and CNN. CNN Spokesman Matt Dornic rejected the comparison in a statement to VICE News.

Despite Dornic’s objection to the report, engagement data via analytics firm CrowdTangle are undeniable. CrowdTangle found Breitbart News has received more likes, comments, and shares than CNN’s primary Facebook page over the last three months.
“We’ve been dominating in our neck of the woods,” Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow told VICE News.
In addition to engaging news stories, Marlow credited Breitbart News’ success on Facebook to its use of content that fosters community interaction, with each post garnering thousands of likes, comments, and shares.
“It’s a bigger win if they’re going straight to the website,” he explained. “But we do look at it as a more holistic approach for developing the brand.”

The obvious explanation is this: Liberal bias saturates “mainstream” news organizations and thus stamps a certain boring conformity on most journalism. Anyone looking for something different — something exciting, not molded to fit the contours of political correctness — will find that Breitbart News offers what they seek. By consistently delivering the desired commodity, Breitbart builds “brand loyalty” in its readers.

So while liberals bemoan the “2019 Media Apocalypse,” readers continue flocking to alternative (i.e., not liberal) news sources.



 

Steve Bannon, Andrew Breitbart and the ‘Humiliating Defeat’ of the Elite Media

Posted on Comments

 

First, the quotes that are being quoted everywhere:

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said during a telephone call.
“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.” . . .
“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.” . . .
Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”
“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”

My teenage son was somewhat puzzled yesterday by Trump press secretary Sean Spicer’s antagonism toward the White House press corps, and I just laughed: “No, you don’t get it — everybody hates the media. The only people in America who don’t hate the media are the media.”

When I woke up Thursday morning and switched on CNN, the chyron across the bottom of the screen was: “TRUMP’S OBSESSION WITH CROWD SIZE” — nearly a week after the inauguration, CNN was still trying to “win” that argument. But who was “obsessed”? Trump or CNN?

“Turn the camera around” — that was one of Andrew Breitbart’s mantras. Force the people behind the camera to explain themselves and make the media’s own biases the subject of the story. The Trump team, with Breitbart’s buddy Bannon as chief of staff, has made it happen. While the grassroots Left is shrieking in a hysterical mood of rage and fear, unable to understand how Hillary lost or what Trump’s presidency means, the elite media continue trying to pretend that the problem is Trump, when the problem is actually in the executive suites and TV control rooms of CNN and other soi-disant “mainstream” news organizations.

Allahpundit at Hot Air:

When I read [Bannon’s quotes to the New York Times], in my mind I hear the quotes in Andrew Breitbart’s voice, not Bannon’s. Conservatives who dislike Breitbart.com’s Trump cheerleading like to complain that the site would have looked different last year if Andrew were in charge, but I’ve always thought that was overstated. Bannon is giving you pure #WAR here. Their goals may be different — Bannon is a nationalist while Breitbart, as I understood him, was more of a libertarian — but the idea of the media as the archenemy of the right is the thread that tied them together, and tied both to the rest of conservative media. The line between Breitbart and Bannon is thinner than anti-Trump righties would like to believe. If you don’t like the #WAR attitude from a Republican White House, at least don’t pretend that it’s all Bannon’s doing.

While a lot of Breitbart’s friends and admirers might share this belief that the difference between the late Breitbart and Bannon is a matter of ideology (i.e., nationalist vs. libertarian), I think that might be overstated. What Bannon brought to the Breitbart operation was the mentality of a guy from a blue-collar Irish-Catholic background with a seven-year Navy career and a Harvard MBA — a natural-born ass-kicker, a populist with a Reaganesque kind of Cold War patriotism. The first time I met Bannon, at RightOnline in 2011, he was promoting a documentary about Sarah Palin, the populist darling of the Tea Party movement. The  “nationalist” label has been invoked by the Left as a smear to imply that Trump has an affinity to Hitler and, seeing it applied to Bannon, I must ask: “How can a patriotic American populist avoid this insulting comparison?” Wouldn’t today’s elite media also make such claims against Democrats like Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman? Can anyone oppose the Soros-funded progressive Left and escape being smeared as a Nazi?

Yes, Breitbart was arguably more “libertarian” than Bannon, but that’s not the real distinction between them. Breitbart was Hollywood, and Bannon is Norfolk, Virginia. That is to say, Breitbart’s political attitudes were formed in opposition to the decadent snobbery of the show-business elite, and his playful sense of mischief — his gifts as a prankster and entertainer — reflected that background. Steve Bannon came from an earlier era (born in 1953, whereas Breitbart was born in 1969) and his attitude is of a guy from a working-class background who succeeded in highly competitive environments — Virginia Tech, the U.S. Navy, Georgetown, Harvard, Wall Street.

A lot of people who worked with Breitbart resented Bannon’s old-school Vince Lombardi/George Patton kick-ass-and-take-names approach. Steve Bannon is not a guy who gives a damn about your hurt feelings, OK? No, ma’am, Steve Bannon is about winning,  He’s the guy that Mitch and Murray send to tell you that first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado, second prize is a set of steak knives, and third prize is you’re fired.

“Put that coffee down. Coffee’s for closers only.”

 

 

Winning is about teamwork, and every team needs a Steve Bannon — someone who’s willing to be Blake from downtown, or Andy Sipowicz, the angry Bad Cop in the interrogation room. You may not like that guy, but his job is not about being liked, it’s about getting results. The addition of Steve Bannon to the Breitbart team freed Andrew Breitbart of the onerous responsibility of being the Bad Cop, the guy who said, “No.” The question of what Andrew would have thought of everything that went on at Breitbart.com the past five years, or what Andrew would say about Trump, must be forever moot. Many people have claimed to speak as the rightful inheritors of Andrew’s vision, but that’s above my pay-grade. My understanding of Bannon’s role at Breitbart.com, and his subsequent ascent to power in the Trump White House, is constructed from inferences based on evidence in the public record, secondhand anecdotes and my own direct observation. The first time I met Andrew Breitbart nearly 10 years ago, at CPAC 2007, I hung out with him in his hotel room at the Omni Shoreham, listening to him talk until 4 a.m., while his roommates Evan Sayet and Joel Mowbray were trying to sleep. Andrew was an inspirational genius whose untimely death was an irreparable loss to the conservative movement, and all any of us have done the past five years is what little we could to keep burning the flame that he ignited.

So now Steve Bannon gets on the phone from the White House and tells the New York Times they’ve suffered a “humiliating defeat,” and the reporters are obliged to quote Bannon’s words verbatim, and you ask me what Andrew would think? Oh, I can hear Andrew laughing loudly.

“Put that coffee down.” The media is losing, and America is winning.



 

 

Hey, @natashavc, Sorry Your Dishonest Scott Walker Smear Got Breitbarted

Posted on Comments

Breitbart (verb) — to expose dishonesty or corruption in a way that destroys the elite media’s preferred narrative, especially when done by a citizen-journalist.

Example: “Brian Cates totally Breitbarted that Walker smear.”

20 seconds of Googling would have cleared up what was going on here, but it was apparently more important to some to rush a piping hot new Walker smear out the door before doing any due diligence.

Jezebel’s “senior political reporter” Natasha Vargas-Cooper got Breitbarted, exposed as a dishonest and corrupt partisan hack, by a guy who did 20 seconds of Googling. Darleen Click:

“But hey, facts don’t matter when a White Patriarchal Werewolf must be defeated at all costs!”

Feminists and Democrats have so much in common — no standards, no integrity and no shame. Their sole principle is the selfish pursuit of power. Somebody should write a book about this.

 

UPDATE: @AmandaBynes Is Crazy

Posted on Comments

This isn’t necessarily news to anyone who has followed the (literally) insane misadventures of Miss Ultimate Starlet Meltdown:

Amanda Bynes is flat-out admitting it.
She was tired and fell asleep on a couch at her local mall, the Beverly Center.
It’s the latest step in the Amanda Bynes journey. She tweeted that she slept there because she “did not have money” for a hotel. . . .
It’s all part of Bynes’ latest battle over money. She wants control of her finances. Her parents now have conservatorship. She has been tweeting that her lawyer is working to get control of her money back to her.
Access Hollywood reports that conservatorship is soon be divided between Amanda’s mom, Lynn Bynes, and a professional private fiduciary.
Amanda’s conservatorship attorney David Esquibias told Access he will work with the unnamed private trust firm to ensure that the actress’ needs are taken care of more efficiently.
“My goal is to get her permanent adequate housing,” Esquibias said, adding he hopes to have the change made official by the judge in the case as early as Friday.

TMZ has gossip from “sources”:

Sources connected to Amanda tell TMZ … she wants “a normal life,” and she believes working in a bar would achieve that goal.
Amanda says she’s well aware of the obvious impediment — she attracts so much attention it would be hard to function as a bartender.
As for why Amanda is even thinking of getting a job … she desperately needs money. She doesn’t have access to her $5.7 million fortune because of her conservatorship, and only gets between $50 and $100 a day. As for what she wants to do with the money, aside from getting an apartment, she wants plastic surgery because she thinks she’s ugly.

Let your brain process these thoughts: She’s got more than $5 million in the bank, but she only gets $100 a day. She’s sleeping on a sofa in the mall, she’s telling friends she wants to get a job as a bartender and she thinks she’s so ugly she needs plastic surgery. Yet all the liberals who run the cultural industry that warped this poor girl’s mind want to keep telling us there’s a Republican “War on Women”?

Andrew Breitbart always said Hollywood was worse than D.C.

As usual, Andrew was right. Damn, I miss him more each day.

 

 

If Breitbart Had Managed To Get An Ambassador Snuffed, Maybe Andrew’s Wife Would Be Left Alone

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Stacy isn’t the only one living in legally exciting times. Pigford, of course, is one of the relatively minor vote-buying schemes afoot these days. Her sorely missed husband’s involvement continues to haunt Andrew Breitbart’s widow:

When fuller context for Sherrod’s remarks emerged, the administration offered to return her to her job, which she declined. In 2011, she sued Breitbart and his employee Larry O’Connor for defamation. Breitbart died unexpectedly in 2012, but his wife was substituted as a defendant in the suit.

At the outset of Thursday’s hearing, Leon lit into Glass for filing a 21-page statement outlining the government’s position—a filing submitted electronically just after midnight Thursday along with a stack of nine exhibits. The judge called it “a self-serving pleading, not requested by anyone” and repeatedly suggested it was filed for “public relations” reasons rather than because it might be useful to the court.

The case has drawn attention because of the subject matter and, more recently, because of indications that the Obama White House might assert executive privilege to block some of the parties’ demands for information.

This country needs thorough, top-down reform so badly that it hurts.