Français | English | Español | Português

Russia Culture

Elton John accused Russian president Vladimir Putin of “hypocrisy” when it comes to his stance on LGBT rights and policies, citing the censorship of the Elton John biopic “Rocketman” as a reason for why he doesn’t take Putin at his word.

In an interview with The Financial Times on Thursday, Putin said he’s willing to “let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that,” but criticized certain lifestyle choices for fear that it could “overshadow” other “traditional family values.”

“I find duplicity in your comment that you want LGBT people to ‘be happy’ and that ‘we have no problem in that,'” John said in a statement obtained by TheWrap. “Yet Russian distributors chose to heavily censor my film ‘Rocketman’ by removing all references to my finding true happiness through my 25 year relationship with David and the raising of my two beautiful sons. This feels like hypocrisy to me.”

Also Read: Elton John and 'Rocketman' Filmmakers Condemn Russian Censorship of Film

John previously issued a statement condemning the censorship of “Rocketman,” in which The Guardian reported that a Russian distributor had cut all scenes in the film featuring gay sex or men kissing due to laws banning “homosexual propaganda,” an estimated five minutes in all of total footage.

Further, the caption ahead of the film’s credits says that John now lives happily with his husband and that they are raising their children together. The Guardian quoted a Russian film critic who said that in Russian version of the film, the credits read that John has established an AIDS foundation and continues to work with his musical partner.

John and the filmmakers at the time said they were unaware that the changes to the film would be made.

“I am proud to live in a part of the world where our governments have evolved to recognise the universal human right to love whoever we want,” John continued in his letter to President Putin. “And I’m truly grateful for the advancement in government policies that have legally supported and allowed my marriage to David. This has brought us both tremendous comfort and happiness.”

Also Read: 'Rocketman' Fact Check: Did Elton John Really Take His Stage Name From John Lennon?

Speaking to the Financial Times, Putin said that the ideals of “liberalism” had become “obsolete” and further threw water on the idea that Russia’s policies are homophobic.

“I am not trying to insult anyone because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia. But we have no problem with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they wish,” Putin said Thursday. “But some things do appear excessive to us. They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles.”

Putin continued: “But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.”

“Rocketman” is a biopic and jukebox musical about John’s life starring Taron Egerton and directed by Dexter Fletcher. The film is in theaters now.

Read John’s full letter to President Putin below:

Dear President Putin,

I was deeply upset when I read your recent interview in the Financial Times. I strongly disagree with your view that pursuing policies that embrace multicultural and sexual diversity are obsolete in our societies. I find duplicity in your comment that you want LGBT people to “be happy” and that “we have no problem in that”. Yet Russian distributors chose to heavily censor my film “Rocketman” by removing all references to my finding true happiness through my 25 year relationship with David and the raising of my two beautiful sons. This feels like hypocrisy to me.

I am proud to live in a part of the world where our governments have evolved to recognise the universal human right to love whoever we want. And I’m truly grateful for the advancement in government policies that have legally supported and allowed my marriage to David. This has brought us both tremendous comfort and happiness.


Elton John


Related stories from TheWrap:

'Rocketman' Banned in Samoa Over Gay Content

14 Music Biopics in the Works After 'Rocketman,' From Elvis Presley to Aretha Franklin (Photos)

'Rocketman:' What Was Elton John's Real Troubadour Concert Like? | 6/28/19

CBS has renewed the summer drama “Blood & Treasure” for a second season, the network announced on Wednesday.

Described as a “globe-trotting action-adventure drama,” the series stars Matt Barr as a former FBI agent who teams up with a resourceful art thief, played by Sofia Pernas, to catch a ruthless terrorist who funds his attacks through stolen arts and antiquities.

“‘Blood & Treasure’ is a fun, escapist adventure with comedic elements filmed in multiple locales around the world that has been a great performer and a wonderful addition to our summer schedule,” Amy Reisenbach, executive vice president, Current Programs, CBS Entertainment, said. “We’ve heard the story pitch for season two and look forward to seeing all-new exploits from Russia to Southeast Asia next year.”

Also Read: Ratings: 'Blood & Treasure' Series Premiere Doesn't Bring Riches to CBS

In the weeks since its debut late last month, “Blood & Treasure” has performed well for CBS on Tuesday nights, averaging 5.71 million viewers as the summer’s most-watched new scripted series.

In addition to Barr and Pernas, Oded Fehr, Michael James Shaw, Katia Winter, James Callis, Alicia Coppola, and Mark Gagliardi also star

The series is produced by CBS Television Studios in association with Propagate Content. Matthew Federman, Stephen Scaia, Taylor Elmore, Ben Silverman, Marc Webb, Mark Vlasic and Howard T. Owens are executive producers.

Related stories from TheWrap:

'The Lincoln Lawyer' Series From David E Kelley in the Works at CBS

Arielle Vandenberg to Host CBS' 'Love Island'

'The Good Fight' Creators on What 'Nasty Things' CBS Let Them Keep for the Broadcast Version of Season 1 | 6/26/19
"Fiddler captures those big moments in our lives, moments of transition..." Roadside Attr. has unveiled an official trailer for a doc film titled Fiddler: A Miracle of Miracles, from filmmaker Max Lewkowicz. The documentary tells the origin story behind one of Broadway's most beloved musicals, Fiddler on The Roof, and its creative roots in early 1960s New York, when "tradition" was on the wane as gender roles, sexuality, race relations and religion were evolving. Fiddler on the Roof is a musical with music by Jerry Bock, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick, and book by Joseph Stein, set in the Pale of Settlement of Imperial Russia in 1905. It first premiered on Broadway in 1964, and was the first musical at the time to surpass 3,000 performances during its original run. This looks like a very fascinating, lively look back at Broadway (and cinema) history. Here's the first trailer for Max Lewkowicz's doc Fiddler: A Miracle of Miracles, direct from YouTube: The origin story ...

Donald Trump’s rants against the media — and in particular, his use of the phrase “enemy of the people” — has increased the danger journalists face across the world, New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said Tuesday at Code Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona.

“What I’m really concerned about is the broader affect [Trump’s criticism is] having on this sort of culture in the United States, a country where freedom of the press and freedom of expression has always been among our most essential rights,” Sulzberger said. “And then, in particular, the incredibly dangerous climate that has been created abroad, where this has basically been read by dictators and tyrants around the world, legitimizing their own efforts to crackdown on the press. We’ve seen unprecedented numbers of attacks on journalists, harassment on journalists.”

Moderator Peter Kafka asked Sulzberger if he draws a direct connection between the president’s comments and the threat journalists face outside the U.S. “I do,” Sulzberger replied, noting what he says is a measurable increase in foreign politicians using the phrase “fake news” to denigrate the media.

Also Read: Trump Rips Big Tech, Says the 'Real Collusion' Is Between Democrats and Silicon Valley

According to a 2018 report by British human rights organization Article 19, 78 journalists were killed and more than 300 were imprisoned in 2017, a 10-year global high. The report also cites a sharp rise in restrictions on media in countries like Russia, Turkey and Hungary in recent years.

Sulzberger, who drew laughs from the conference audience when he said the president was “obviously” a “loyal reader,” said he was especially unsettled by his use of the phrase “enemy of the people,” something he said harkens back to Stalinist Russia.

Sulzberger also pointed to a disparity between President Trump’s public and “private posture” towards the media. He recalled a meeting with Trump where his secretary told him he had several important calls to return. Trump, according to Sulzberger, responded “what could be more important than The New York Times?”

Also Read: Network Presidents Defend Coverage of Trump Tweets: 'They Are the Voice of the President'

Kafka then asked which side truly reflects the president’s stance.

“What’s his real view? When you’re the president of the United States, we need to take you at your word,” Sulzberger said.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Madonna Feels 'Raped' by Her New York Times Profile

50 Actresses Over 50 Who Still Rule Hollywood (Photos)

12 Tony Awards Surprises and Highlights, From Ali Stroker's Win to Neil Patrick Harris' Cameo (Photos) | 6/11/19

Dan Harris is stepping down from his post as anchor of ABC’s “Nightline” to focus on growing 10% Happier, a business based on his 2014 book of the same name.

“It is a high class problem: I simply have too many awesome things on my plate, between weekend ‘GMA,’ ‘Nightline,’ and the expanding 10% juggernaut (which, by the way, never would have come into being without an astounding level of support from ABC News),” Harris said in a memo to staff Tuesday. “So why, given all the options, did I decide to drop the ‘Nightline’ anchor gig? Because, frankly, you deserve an anchor who gives it his or her all. This team of amazing producers – who work all hours and travel all over the world – has the right to expect an on-air representative who is in the trenches with you day after day. And the circumstances of my life simply will not allow that right now.”

Harris, who has been with ABC News since 2000 and co-anchored “Nightline” since 2013, will remain as a co-anchor of the weekend of “GMA” and host ABC News’ “10% Happier” podcast.

Also Read: Summer TV Premiere Dates: Here's Every New and Returning Show (Photos)

“I’m happy to tell you that he’ll continue to report his trademark powerful and important, deeply reported stories for ‘Nightline’ and across ABC News,” Goldstone wrote in his own memo to the news division.

“Dan has traveled the world fearlessly for an up close look at some of the most dangerous places on the planet, from Rio de Janeiro’s war on drugs and Vladimir Putin’s Russia to the inner workings of the Sinaloa cartel’s drug operations in Mexico and notorious gang violence in El Salvador,” he continued. “At the same time, it’s been incredibly exciting to witness how Dan’s thriving 10% Happier franchise has grown from a best-selling book to an award-winning podcast, highly-rated app and second best-selling book, drawing millions of fans. It’s a testament to his hard work and a reflection of how vital meditation and mindfulness have become in our modern culture. I can’t wait to see where it goes next.”

See Harris’ full memo to staff below.

Also Read: Ratings: Kevin Durant's NBA Finals Return - and Subsequent Exit - in Game 5 Dominates for ABC


It is surreal to step away from your dream job.

The irony is not lost on me. In my book, 10% Happier, I wrote at length about how I fought and pleaded to anchor Nightline. But it is the success of that book — and its spawn: a podcast and a tech startup — that are the reason I now have to step away.

It is a high class problem: I simply have too many awesome things on my plate, between weekend GMA, Nightline, and the expanding 10% juggernaut (which, by the way, never would have come into being without an astounding level of support from ABC News).

So why, given all the options, did I decide to drop the Nightline anchor gig? Because, frankly, you deserve an anchor who gives it his or her all. This team of amazing producers — who work all hours and travel all over the world — has the right to expect an on-air representative who is in the trenches with you day after day. And the circumstances of my life simply will not allow that right now.

I am not going away. I don’t know where my office will be, but it won’t be far. (Which means Jasmine won’t have to make an arduous journey for the next practical joke she wants to play on me.) More importantly, I will continue working on big, investigative stories. The reports I have been able to file for this show — from the Congo, Haiti, El Salvador, Brazil, Mexico, even Papua New Guinea — have been some of the most meaningful work of my life.

I love Nightline. I love doing these kinds of stories. And I love being part of this incredible culture. None of that will change.

It has been an absolute privilege for me to share the anchor seat for the past five and a half years on one of the most insightful and well-respected news shows on television. Nightline is in great hands with Steve, Juju, Byron and our team of senior producers.

I want to say thank you to everyone at Nightline — for doing some of the best work in broadcast news, for establishing and maintaining one of the most extraordinary collaborative work cultures I have ever seen, and for making fun of me when I deserve it (daily). I look forward to much more.

With immense gratitude,


And here’s Goldston’s note.


After nearly 6 years, Dan Harris has decided to step back from his anchor duties on Nightline to dedicate more time to his rapidly growing 10% Happier business and other roles at ABC News. I’m happy to tell you that he’ll continue to report his trademark powerful and important, deeply reported stories for Nightline and across ABC News.

Dan has traveled the world fearlessly for an up close look at some of the most dangerous places on the planet, from Rio de Janeiro’s war on drugs and Vladimir Putin’s Russia to the inner workings of the Sinaloa cartel’s drug operations in Mexico and notorious gang violence in El Salvador.

At the same time, it’s been incredibly exciting to witness how Dan’s thriving 10% Happier franchise has grown from a best-selling book to an award-winning podcast, highly-rated app and second best-selling book, drawing millions of fans. It’s a testament to his hard work and a reflection of how vital meditation and mindfulness have become in our modern culture. I can’t wait to see where it goes next.

While Dan may be stepping away from the Nightline anchor desk, he will continue to anchor the weekend editions of GMA with Eva, Whit, Adrienne and Rob and host the 10% Happier podcast.

Nightline has long been distinguished by captivating storytelling and in-depth, tenacious journalism. I’m incredibly proud of Steve, Juju, Byron and the entire team for carrying that legacy into the future, including a new slate of documentary features to come. There’s much more great work ahead from this stellar team.

Please join me in thanking Dan for his tremendous work as anchor at Nightline. Below you can read a personal note from him.


Related stories from TheWrap:

Ratings: Kevin Durant's NBA Finals Return – and Subsequent Exit – in Game 5 Dominates for ABC

ABC Talent and Casting Exec Ayo Davis Promoted to EVP, Adds Disney+

Ratings: ABC Dunks on Competition With Game 1 of Warriors-Raptors NBA Finals | 6/11/19

This weekend, a European phenomenon is back — though Americans may have to hunt for clips on YouTube or seek out a VPN and watch via another country’s home broadcaster.

The Eurovision Song Contest, a cross between “The X Factor” and the Miss Universe pageant that offers Yanks a glimpse of what it’s like to be in a culture that doesn’t have jazz and blues as the foundation of its pop music.

For those who’ve never seen — or even heard of Eurovision — before, here’s a quick primer to get you caught up.

Also Read: Taylor Swift on 'Taylor Swift Award' Win: 'I'm Really Super Relieved' (Video)

What exactly is this contest?
Eurovision began as an idea back in the mid-1950s as a way for Europe to come together after World War II had ripped it apart. It was a pretty revolutionary effort for its time. Television was still the Wild West of communications and the Olympics hadn’t yet become an international broadcasting event. Eurovision was one of the first major attempts to hold an event that people from a wide range of countries could watch. With that in mind, the organizers wanted each country to showcase a song that was indicative of their culture.

That sounds like a pretty noble goal.
Yes … but it was also very out of touch with what was happening with music at the time. Rock ‘n’ roll was beginning to take root and The Beatles would take the world by storm just a few years after Eurovision’s inception. This meant that Eurovision’s lineup of ballads and cultural pieces quickly felt antiquated compared to the rock revolution that was going on in the charts. And that was six decades ago … the entries would only get weirder from there.

How weird?
For starters, there was once a rule implemented on and off over the years stating that participants could only enter songs that were in their country’s main language. When that rule was in effect, some countries found a loophole: give the song a hook that involves complete gibberish. Songs with titles like “Boom Boom” and “Diggi-loo Diggi-ley” poured out while the home-language rule was in effect.

Then there are the artists themselves. As Eurovision has evolved, more and more ridiculous acts have come out of the woodwork. Finnish monster-rock bands, Russian grandmas and Latvian pirates are among the acts that have performed for a TV audience of hundreds of millions in recent Eurovisions. And that Finnish monster rock band actually won.

Also Read: Celine Dion's Brother Daniel Dies Just 2 Days After Her Husband

Jeez! So is this just some musical freak show?
Well … let’s be fair. While there’s always been some silly novelty acts, there’s also some solid bits of Europop on hand every year from genuinely talented folks. Sweden won in 2012 with “Euphoria,” a soaring dance track by “Idol” contestant Loreen that went multi-platinum in her country after her victory.

There’s also a small handful of top stars on the winners’ list you might recognize. ABBA used Eurovision as a launch pad to stardom in 1974 with their song “Waterloo,” and French-Canadian Celine Dion’s win in 1988 was her biggest claim to fame before “Titanic” came out. Quality — or at least creativity — does tend to win out at Eurovision.

OK, so how does this contest work?
First, all the countries have a national contest where they vote on which song will represent at Eurovision. The participants are divided up into two semifinals, with the exception of the host nation and the “Big Five” countries — France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. — who automatically qualify for the final.  They are joined by the 10 countries that get the most votes in each semifinal. In the final, all 26 countries get three minutes to make a good impression, and then the whole continent votes “Idol”-style (not for their home country, of course), as do professional juries for each country.

Then the show transitions to a long procession of national “ambassadors” reading out who each country gave their votes to. The top 10 performers in each country’s vote get points, with 12 points going to the top vote-getter, followed by 10 and then eight down to one for the rest of the order. The same goes with the juries, but with 10 points going to the performer in first place.

And what does the performer with the most points win?
This trophy. Oh, and their country gets to host the competition next year.

What? No prize money? No contract? No vague promises of superstardom?
Nope. The winners do get their 15 minutes of fame and some success on the charts, but beyond ABBA and Celine, Eurovision winners almost never have long-term success. Again, Eurovision long ago moved away from the sort of music that leaves a lasting cultural impact.

Even now, a good chunk of the acts are homogenous power ballads that can blur together when performed in succession. Still, Eurovision is worth watching just for the spectacle of it all. The Disneyland-esque sweetness of the proceedings is charming, and the lack of stakes for the performers keeps it feeling light and fun rather than a battle for wealth, glory, and continental supremacy.

Also Read: 'Can't Stop the Feeling': Justin Timberlake Drops Catchy New Single (Video)

It has also made headlines in recent years that have allowed it to take steps beyond the realm of annual oddities like the Running of the Bulls. The winner in 2014 was gay Austrian singer Thomas Neuwirth, who performed as drag queen superstar Conchita Wurst. The victory transformed Conchita into an LGBT icon in Europe, even as Russian conservatives raged in fury and used the singer as an example of why Russia shouldn’t be a part of the EU. For all of Eurovision’s platitudes about tolerance and peace, this was a moment where those ideals were actually acted upon, even if it meant breaking the general tone of inoffensiveness.

If it’s supposed to be European, why is Australia a competitor?
It turns out that Eurovision has a major cult following in Australia, and they were invited to compete several years ago as a thanks for all the support down under. The expansion of the European Union means countries like Azerbaijan and Israel get to compete too.

So…if all these countries that aren’t strictly European are competing, does this mean we may be seeing the USA compete in Eurovision soon?
Eh…don’t count on it.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Taylor Swift Dances 'Like No One's Watching' to The Darkness in New Apple Music Ad (Video)

Led Zeppelin Copyright Case Heats Up as Lawyers Clash Over Music Experts

Music Mogul Irving Azoff to YouTube: Stop Pretending You Love Musicians

Eurovision's 9 Most Famous and Bizarre Moments, From ABBA to Russian Grandmas (Videos) | 5/18/19

Country X is occupied by Country Y, so how do citizens of these two very different nations cope, relate, converse and otherwise interact with each other? That’s the subject of Christopher Chen’s provocative new play, “Passage,” which opened Sunday at Off Broadway’s Soho Rep.

The playwright’s use of letters extends beyond these two undefined countries. The many characters have names that range from B to S, with one actor (Howard W. Overshown, wisely underplaying each role) multicast as characters named D, J, S, the Gecko and the Mosquito. All these letters sounds confusing, but shortly after you’ve figured out that Country Y isn’t Country Why, it begins to make sense.

“Passage” could be about China and Tibet, or Russia and Crimea, or maybe even the United States and Guam. Chen’s use of the letters X and Y gives him enormous freedom, and he uses it to powerful effect. That’s also true of the dozen lettered characters on stage that costume designer Toni-Leslie James has color-coded (per the instructions in Chen’s script) so that the citizens of X and Y, not to mention the Gecko and the Mosquito, are easily distinguished.

Also Read: Tony Award Nominations: 7 Biggest Snubs and Surprises, From Glenda Jackson to 'To Kill a Mockingbird'

Saheem Ali’s fluid direction and use of Arnulfo Maldonado’s unique turntable set also help to clarify. In a stunning coup d’teatre, the actors sometimes perform as stagehands to spin Maldonado’s set as their actor colleagues stand or walk on the moving platform. Amith Chandrashaker’s lighting adds to the movement and often charges the space with dramatic foreboding.

The first half of “Passages” moves briskly through a number of brief confrontations set in Country X: An X woman (Purva Bedi) believes that one of her X friends (David Ryan Smith) is too complicit with the Y government; a new Y émigré (Andrea Abello) soon discovers that her Y fiancé (Yair Ben-Dor), a longtime resident of Country X, has changed and not for the better; a well-known X doctor (K.K. Moggie) deals effectively but warily with various Y citizens (Howard W. Overshown and Linda Powell) living and working in her own country; and so on.

It’s a credit to Chen’s powers as a writer that each of these encounters immediately engages, and in under an hour, he establishes a wide panorama of a society under siege but still functioning. Except for the occasional protest, civility reigns.

Also Read: Tony Award Nominations 2019: The Complete List, From 'Hadestown' to 'Tootsie'

This meandering but captivating plot quickly comes together in the second half of “Passage.” It involves an explosive incident at a holy site in Country X when the X doctor takes the Y émigré on a tour of some caves. The actor Lizan Mitchell has been the play’s host and narrator, a.k.a. G, and she tells us that this episode may recall “A Passage to India,” by E.M. Forster, but adds, “This isn’t his story but our story.”

Indeed, Chen has lifted from Forster — not only the caves but the title “Passage” — but goes to a very different place.

Too often in today’s theater, playwrights promote a culture of victimization, with everybody racing to claim his or her group as the most persecuted. The first half of “Passage” leads us to believe that Chen’s play will be another one of those. The second half completely turns those expectations upside down.

Much credit here goes to the very understated but immensely empathetic performances delivered by Powell and Moggie. Equally wonderful is the work of Mitchell. She begins as our host and narrator. By play’s end, she has become the evening’s shaman.

Related stories from TheWrap:

'Beetlejuice' Broadway Review: Tim Burton's Ghosts Turn Scarily Uncomic in Musical Misfire

'Ink' Broadway Review: Rupert Murdoch Gets Hit With a Puff Piece

Tony Award Nominations: 7 Biggest Snubs and Surprises, From Glenda Jackson to 'To Kill a Mockingbird' | 5/6/19

After a weekend that saw the Marvel Cinematic Universe once again assert its dominance over the pop culture landscape, Marvel Studios will now see its lifetime box office grosses cross the $20 billion mark after “Avengers: Endgame” entered the top 10 all-time box office list on Monday.

The superhero crossover’s first weekday in theaters was also the opening day for the final market to receive the film — Russia. There, the film made $7.8 million and set a new record for the highest opening day in that country, 59% ahead of the previous record set by “Avengers: Infinity War,” which opened on a Thursday.

Also Read: Roy Wood Jr Responds to Anger Over 'Avengers: Endgame' Spoilers by Spoiling Lots of Other Stuff (Video)

On the domestic side, “Endgame” grossed $36.7 million, the second highest total ever recorded on a Monday behind the $40 million made by “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” in 2015. That total is also down 60 percent from the $90.3 million opening “Endgame” made on Sunday. By comparison, “Infinity War” made $24.7 million for a 64% day-to-day drop.

This is an early sign that the second weekend of “Endgame” is going to be one of the largest in industry history, and will likely mean that the film will hit the $2 billion mark in the same time that it took “Infinity War” to hit $1 billion. Already after six days in theaters, “Endgame” has reached a global total of $1.34 billion, leapfrogging films like “Frozen,” “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom,” and “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” to enter the top 10 highest grossing films of all time.

For Marvel Studios, this is a capstone moment in its rise to box office dominance since it first released “Iron Man” 11 years ago. As of today, Marvel Studios has produced half of the top 10 highest grossing films of all time before inflation adjustment, those five films being “Black Panther” and all four “Avengers” films.

Related stories from TheWrap:

'Avengers: Endgame' Directors Say Netflix vs Disney Will Be 'Closest Race to Watch' in Streaming Wars

'Avengers: Endgame' Has Broken 144 Box Office Records… and Counting

'Avengers: Endgame' Makes Box Office History With $1.2 Billion Global Opening | 4/30/19

The internet started to take on momentum in the 1990s. At that time many analysts, myself included, marveled at the opportunity of creating a platform that would boost grassroot democracy. There was no need for a middleman and there were few barriers to ordinary people becoming involved. This included organizing groups, discussions and events, sharing knowledge, insights and information, publishing opinions — just some of the potential attached to the internet. And for the first two decades, this basically was what happened, in a very positive and constructive way. It did disrupt several business, social and political models but that that was seen as 'a new broom sweeping clean.'

All of that is still happening — and as a matter of fact, it has only increased. However, at the same time, the ugly side of humanity has moved into this area as well. They all jumped on the bandwagon — cheats, plain criminals, misogynists, racists and bullies. This was very unfortunate, but it became serious when more organized misuse of the internet began to take place. This is undermining democracy and democratic processes; many people began to say enough is enough.

Most of the misuse is aimed at generating fake traffic that leads to extra advertising income or click income on YouTube for instance. In proportion to overall internet activity the other, serious political misuse is significantly less. It has, however, far deeper negative consequences. It is using manipulation to set people against each other. It interferes with democratic processes such as elections and undermines democratic institutions.

This criminal internet activity happens more or less in parallel with broader traditional forms of manipulations and is not limited to the internet. The fake news activities and the undermining of democratic institutions are for example carried out by President Trump without the internet. The same is happening in countries such as Britain, Turkey, Hungary, Poland and Italy, to name just a few.

There is no doubt that the internet has become an important tool to create division, hatred and conflict. This has more to do with human behaviour than with technology. Addressing only the technology element of this problem will not solve the much more serious underlying issues.

Division, lies, hatred, fake news, racism and conflict are being used by our leaders in public. It is then not difficult to understand that people perceive this as a license to do the same, with or without technology.

It is important to state that it is not the internet that is causing all of this. So far the internet has created far more positive than negative outcomes, and we need to preserve what's best about it. Most importantly, this includes the freedom for people to express themselves. Equally important is that entrepreneurs can innovate and build new business models. At the same time, we need to ensure that we protect society from broader harm.

We can look at what we have done with other tools that we use — tools like guns, cars, chemicals and drugs. All these products and services can have negatives associated with them. What we have done over the years to address this is to build elements into these products and services to limit the risk and increase safety.

This has been done through the hard work of everyone involved: the government and industry, as well as the users/consumers. As an example, look at cars in the 1970s. They killed 3 to 4 times more people than they do now, and our population has nearly doubled over that period. How did this change happen? Partly through regulation, partly through better products, and partly through human behaviour.

Have we, as a result, eliminated all the harmful elements of motor cars? No, of course not. But the risks have been reduced considerably over those years. This to such a level that the negative (e.g., death by car accidents) seems to be acceptable to most of us. Is that enough? No, it isn't. And so we are still trying to improve, through the combined efforts of government, industry and us, the people.

We will also have to begin to develop similar processes in relation to the internet. However, before we know what we need to do, we will first have to drill down to where the problems are and work out who can do what in addressing the issues.

Starting with the government, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned the need for a more active role for governments and regulators. He suggested the need for an update of the rules for the internet. In particularly in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.

In relation to the industry, he recommends starting with data manipulation aimed at defrauding the internet companies. Here the social media companies have a vested interest in tackling that problem themselves as fraud cost them money. The tools that they develop to minimize this can also be used to address other data manipulation issues — for example, interferences in elections and fake news. As Zuckerburg indicated, the government will also have to play a key role in setting up the rules for this. This will also need to be done at international levels.

It will remain a cat and mouse situation. New — more sophisticated — technologies to combat this will be developed, and they will be circumvented by criminals, and this process will continue. In the end, criminal interferences will be greatly reduced. The reason being that it simply becomes too costly for many of the groups to come up with their own tools to crack the ones developed by industry. The best hope here is for a managed situation, similar to those that have been created to manage other potentially dangerous tools, as in the motor car example.

A challenging issue here is the fact that what is harmful to one society, culture or religion is not necessarily the same for another group. A real threat — or even perhaps a reality — is that this would lead to a further regionalization of the internet. Countries such as China, Iran and North Korea have already created their own walls around the internet, and Russia is also trying to build its wall.

Another issue in relation to the industry is whether some of these companies are becoming too dominant and are showing monopolistic tendencies. A very human reaction to this is that we don't tolerate monopolies. We, therefore, need to start looking at industry legislation, be it anti-trust remedies, breaking up companies or other solutions.

Lastly, we also need to drill down on the people's side. We need to identify and address what causes the problematic behaviour of those misusing the internet before we can address these issues. Education and information at schools and elsewhere will be important. They will deliver longer-term positive outcomes.

Full-blown criminal behavior, racism, hate speech and the like are already punishable under existing laws. Our enforcement agencies, however, are still not well-equipped to address Internet-based crimes as effectively as they address similar crimes conducted in more traditional ways.

I am sometimes alerted by people who read my analyses to information or activities that are of an illegal or criminal nature. I report them to the appropriate authorities, but I have never received an answer from them. And if one goes to a police station to report internet abuse that will still too often elicit a blank look from the officer at the desk.

In order to get the people on board here, they need to be supported by well-functioning institutions. They should be able to take effective action against individuals that are crossing the line online. At the moment there is a feeling among the public that they are losing control over some of the central mechanisms of their lives. In the case of the internet, the lives of most people have been improved, and it has created lots of new economic activity. At the same time, it is also clear that the negatives of technology are such that people are not comfortable with the risks and safety issues. Comparing this with the example of motor cars, it is obvious that more work is needed. And whether we like it or not, people want action now.

So far this is resulting in some countries introducing broad and vague sweeping laws. Laws which are not implemented effectively, because it is impossible to do so while they are still being written. We clearly need to improve on that.

This will become increasingly apparent as time goes on. My colleagues in America say that the problems with the hastily introduced social media legislation will soon become evident in Australia. Other countries will learn from these mistakes and will adopt more realistic legislation to safeguard innovation, economic growth and freedom of speech. These core democratic elements seem to become the casualties of bad legislation. With a lack of effective self-regulation from the digital media giants, there is however no doubt that major changes to these negative elements in the use of the of the Internet will increasingly be regulated and legislated.

Written by Paul Budde, Managing Director of Paul Budde Communication | 4/24/19

HBO has released the first full-length trailer for its upcoming five-part miniseries about the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

Jared Harris, Stellan Skarsgård, Emily Watson, Paul Ritter, Jessie Buckley, Adrian Rawlins and Con O’Neill star in “Chernobyl,” which dramatizes the story of the 1986 nuclear accident.

The accident, which took place in April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the abandoned city of Pripyat, Ukraine, occurred following a massive explosion that released radioactive material across Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, reaching as far as Scandinavia and Western Europe. It is considered one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history.

Also Read: 'Game of Thrones': HBO Sets 2-Hour Final Season Documentary to Debut a Week After Series Finale

HBO’s miniseries tells the story of the men and women who sacrificed to save Europe from unimaginable disaster, all the while battling a culture of disinformation.

“Chernobyl” was written by Craig Mazin and directed by Johan Renck. Executive producers are Carolyn Strauss, Jane Featherstone and Mazin, with Chris Fry and Johan Renck serving as co-executive producers. Produced by Sister Pictures and the Mighty Mint as an HBO/Sky Co-Production. The series was filmed on location in Lithuania.

Watch the video above.

“Chernobyl” will premiere Monday, May 6 at 9 p.m. ET/PT on HBO.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Edgar Ramirez, Lily Rabe Join Nicole Kidman's HBO Limited Series 'The Undoing'

'Game of Thrones' Prequel Pilot at HBO Adds 5 More Cast Members | 3/28/19
By Emanuel Pietrobon What if Russia never sold Alaska to the United States? History would have been completely different, this is why the study of the Alaska purchase is a must-to-do for every want-to-be geopolitician and strategist Between 1835 and 1840 the French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville published "Democracy in America", a two-volume essay focused on the explanation of the reasons behind the firmly establishment of democratic culture in the United States.

Video game giant Electronic Arts is laying off 350 people, the company said on Tuesday, marking the latest round of job cuts to hit the gaming industry in recent months.

The layoffs represent about 4 percent of EA’s global workforce. The Redwood City, California-based company is behind popular sports franchises like the “Madden” football and “FIFA” soccer series, as well as the “Battlefield” shooter series.

“These are important but very hard decisions, and we do not take them lightly,” EA chief Andrew Wilson said in a blog post. “We are friends and colleagues at EA, we appreciate and value everyone’s contributions, and we are doing everything we can to ensure we are looking after our people to help them through this period to find their next opportunity. This is our top priority.”

Also Read: Activision Blizzard Cuts Nearly 800 Jobs Despite 'Best' Financial Year

The layoffs will primarily impact EA’s marketing, publishing and operations teams. EA will also be “ramping down” its teams in Russia and Japan, Wilson said.

The cuts come only a month after Activision Blizzard, the Santa Monica-based company behind several of the world’s top video games, including “World of Warcraft” and “Call of Duty,” let go of 800 employees. And last September, Telltale Games laid off 250 employees, effectively shuttering the company.

Shares of EA stock increased half a percent on Tuesday, closing at $102.32 per share.

Related stories from TheWrap:

'Black Mirror: Bandersnatch' Is a Video Game That Makes You Feel Helpless (Review)

'Overlord' Film Review: Great Video Game Movie That's Not Based on a Video Game

Adi Shankar in Talks to Produce 'Legend of Zelda' TV Series Based on Video Game | 3/26/19

Electronic Arts has issued a statement on a sizable round of layoffs that aim to ramp "down our current presence in Japan and Russia" and refocus on "increasing quality in our games and services." ... | 3/26/19
The UK Parliament's seizure of internal Facebook documents is already leading to trouble for the social network. Digital Culture, Media and Sport committee chairman Damian Collins has alleged that Facebook knew of Russia-linked data harvesting in 20... | 11/27/18
Dmitri Kuznetsov, known as Husky, was sentenced on charges of hooliganism after he tried to serenade fans on the street when a concert was canceled. | 11/23/18
Once an ambassador of American culture in post-Soviet Russia, McDonald’s is now navigating rising U.S.-Kremlin tensions. To stay above the fray, the chain is taking a new tack: Go Russian. | 11/8/18
Once an ambassador of American culture in post-Soviet Russia, McDonald’s is now navigating rising U.S.-Kremlin tensions. To stay above the fray, the chain is taking a new tack: Go Russian. | 11/8/18

If you are among the detractors of The Last Jedi, know that you have been riled into a state of hatred by a calculated effort to sow discord in American popular culture.

The post Russia is to Blame for at Least Some of ‘The Last Jedi’ Online Hate and Vitriol appeared first on Egotastic - Sexy Celebrity Gossip and Entertainment News. | 10/2/18

If watching Tiffany Haddish put Kevin Hart through the educational wringer in “Night School” isn’t enticing you to go to the movies this weekend, perhaps a Russian action comedy in which Russian spies team up with the CIA might be your thing.

Or not.

Director Andrezj Bartkowiak — an action maven who has worked on films like “Speed” and directed Jet Li in multiple films — is offering up “Maximum Impact,” a film that sees Russian FSB agents (of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) team up with the CIA in order to stop their respective countries from declaring nuclear war after the grandaughter of the secretary of state — played by Eric Roberts — is kidnapped. The film is a co-production between Russian studio Czar Pictures and Hollywood Storm, a L.A.-based outlet created by the movie’s leading star, Moscow-born Alexander Nevsky.

So what’s the comedy part? Well, there’s a Secret Service agent played by Tom Arnold — whose character has a bladder problem — and a drug lord played by famed Hollywood bad guy actor Danny Trejo. There are also some unintentional laughs about the film’s poster, which movie buffs on Reddit have noted bears a striking resemblance to the 2017 Michael Keaton black ops action film “American Assassin.” Billy Baldwin also appears in the film as a shadowy American.

Also Read: 'Maximum Impact' Film Review: Pro-Russian Action-Comedy Serves Up Misogyny Alongside Propaganda

But April Wolfe, in her review for TheWrap, calls it a propaganda film. And a bad one at that.

“It’s not not a worthy cause to portray Russian citizens in a more flattering light; god knows American propagandistic films painted Soviets as the big bad for decades, and that’s not an easy image recovery,” she wrote.  “But hoo-boy, this movie has some pretty blatant intentions of specifically making the FSB (née KGB) look nice and not shady at all. Whatever, that’s fine. American cinema isn’t short on pro-CIA narratives. But aside from the political implications, you’ll find this film is also quite hateful of women, too.”

The film was released in Russia last November, but barely made a dent at the box office with Box Office Mojo reporting a gross of just under $32,000. Now it’s coming out in limited release via CineTel this weekend in advance of a digital/VOD release on Tuesday, less than six weeks before a U.S. midterm election that has newspapers reporting on whether Russia will try to interfere. 

Watch the trailer here:

Related stories from TheWrap:

'Maximum Impact' Film Review: Pro-Russian Action-Comedy Serves Up Misogyny Alongside Propaganda

CNN Reporters Defend Trump-Russia Piece in Wake of Blowback: 'CNN Stands by Its Story'

Steven Seagal Named 'Special Representative' for Russia's Foreign Ministry | 9/27/18

Let us look back at the history of Russian propaganda films. The standard-bearer must be Sergei Eisenstein’s 1938 “Alexander Nevsky,” a Stalinist-era epic centered on the hero Prince Alexander, who drove out the Romans in the 13th century. The barely-veiled subtext of that film, however, was a depiction of Russo-German relations as the war loomed ahead, with a call to arms for citizens and a clear warning to would-be attackers. I’ve no idea how effective it was at reaching its propagandistic goals, but the film itself is gorgeous and filled with inventive effects, and Eisenstein accomplished at least the feat of cinematic excellence.

Flash forward to 2018, and the quality of Russian propaganda films has fallen dramatically. Case in point: “Maximum Impact,” a joint Russian-American action comedy about a top-secret summit meeting between the American secretary of state and Russian head of state, with the goal of shoring up relations between the two countries. (Much like the stated goal of the company that produced this film, Czar Pictures.)

In the film, the only thing getting in the way of the U.S. and Russia becoming best buds is a shadowy coalition between a raggedy Smoking Man-esque American (a Democrat?) played by Billy Baldwin and the Germans (?), who are plotting to frame the very innocent Russians for a terrorist attack. Starring in this picture, and a handful of recent films intent on portraying positive images of Russians, is the actor Alexander Nevsky, an Orange County Putin acolyte who looks like if you asked your grandmother to paint a portrait of Steven Seagal in her community art class, and acts like acting is his own personal hell that he must endure.

Watch Video: 'Hunt for the Trump Tapes' Host Tom Arnold Promises 'There's a Pee-Pee Tape'

It’s not not a worthy cause to portray Russian citizens in a more flattering light; god knows American propagandistic films painted Soviets as the big bad for decades, and that’s not an easy image recovery. But hoo-boy, this movie has some pretty blatant intentions of specifically making the FSB (née KGB) look nice and not shady at all. Whatever, that’s fine. American cinema isn’t short on pro-CIA narratives. But aside from the political implications, you’ll find this film is also quite hateful of women, too. Goody!

Directed by Andrzej Barkowiak — cinematographer of “The Verdict,” “Speed,” and “Falling Down” — this film bears zero resemblance to any film Barkowiak has ever made before, including those he directed himself, like the stunning 1990s breakout Jet Li vehicles “Romeo Must Die” or “Cradle 2 the Grave.” It is as though Barkowiak was body-snatched and replaced with Tommy Wiseau, and it doesn’t help that “Rush Hour” scribe Ross LaManna is recycling some of his worst jokes here, most of which focus on shaming and harassing women and then laughing at how frazzled they get, specifically Kelly Hu’s character Kate, a secret service officer.

Also Read: CNN Reporters Defend Trump-Russia Piece in Wake of Blowback: 'CNN Stands by Its Story'

When Kate and FSB agent Maxim (Nevsky) — Get it? Maxim-um Impact? — round up their people to take on the pesky Germans together, Kate’s subjected to humiliation after humiliation. At one point, Maxim comes up behind her, puts a giant silver bowl over her head to restrain and blind her, and begins cutting off her hair, while all the men laugh. “That was a $250 haircut,” she throws back at them before finishing with the scissors herself. Hahahaha! (In many cultures, forcibly cutting off a woman’s hair is a means of publicly dehumanizing them.)

Sometimes Kate gets to participate in her own sexualization, like when the teams are watching surveillance footage, and she remarks upon seeing herself that her pants aren’t doing her ass any favors. Another time, Kate gets the nutty idea to jack a car to better chase the Germans, and one of her peers lovingly calls her a “crazy-ass bitch.” For the life of me, I cannot understand why Hu signed on for this film. Perhaps it was the allure of physical comedy and kicking and punching the bad guys, both of which are rarely offered to women actors.

Also Read: Trump Slammed for Saying Lester Holt 'Caught Fudging' Comey Interview: 'Out of His F--ing Mind'

What’s most dizzying about this film has nothing to do with political messages; those are all too clear. Instead, it’s the particularly mean and bizarre humor that boggles the mind. It becomes impossible to decode the joke or what the hell LaManna was thinking.

Tom Arnold as Agent Barnes gets the most confounding of these scenes: Barnes chatters about his enlarged prostate and health issues constantly. When the team is en route to Russia, he interrupts a discussion, wailing about his need to pee. Only, when he opens the bathroom door, there is a teen girl texting on her phone, crouched by the toilet. Barnes yelps at her to, “Watch out!” And then we cut to an exterior of the plane, while we hear Barnes emphatically and vocally relieving himself, ostensibly right over the head of this teen girl. It’s scenes like these that will have you sighing, wondering what happened to the days of sophisticated propaganda.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Michael Cohen Attorney Outs Himself as Source of Trump-Russia CNN Report

ShortList 2018: 'Little Potato' Tells Gay Russian Story With an Almodovar Twist (Video)

Steven Seagal Named 'Special Representative' for Russia's Foreign Ministry

Russian Media Crows Over Trump-Putin Love: 'He Really Smells Like an Agent of the Kremlin' | 9/27/18

When Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) threatened to defy Senate rules and release confidential documents about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, he cited the opportunity to have his own “I am Spartacus” moment — and prompted a few head scratches about the pop culture reference.

“This is the closest I’ll ever get in my life to an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment,” Booker said, citing a line from the 1960 Academy Award-winning movie “Spartacus,” directed by Stanley Kubrick and starring Kirk Douglas, and based on real history.

While the line Booker is referring to is iconic, it’s also just old enough that it’s beginning to slip from some people’s pop culture lexicon.

Also Read: Donald Trump Bashes New York Times and 'Disgusting' New Editorial Board Member

“Spartacus” follows a Thracian man named Spartacus (Douglas) who is a slave of the Roman empire in the 1st century B.C., but consistently defies them and leads other slaves in a revolt that initially proves successful.

When Spartacus’ fighters are surrounded and mostly slaughtered outside Rome, the Romans question the survivors to identify their leader so they can make an example of him. And that’s when the survivors each each stand up to declare, “I am Spartacus!” to protect their beloved leader.

The Romans wind up crucifying all the survivors, including Spartacus himself — who was based on a real man who led an uprising, though the “I am Spartacus” scene comes from the novel on which the movie is based, not history.

Also Read: Joe Arpaio Tells Sacha Baron Cohen 'It Wouldn't Surprise Me' If Trump Had a 'Golden Shower'

So Booker’s mention of the “I am Spartacus” moment refers to the Democrats defying what they see as an unjust rules about the disclosure of material derived from tens of thousands of documents related to Kavanaugh’s previous government service that had been marked “committee confidential.”

Democrats have argued that too many of Kavanaugh’s records remain unreleased, and that they haven’t had sufficient time to read through them as Republicans try to force through the nomination ahead of the midterm elections in November.

In threatening to make public the document, an email thread, Booker said he knew that  Republicans could pursue charges against him and even seek to oust him from the Senate.

Booker is also talking about his willingness to sacrifice himself for a cause he believes in, the way Spartacus and his men were willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause of advancing freedom in Rome.

Also Read: 'Who Is America?' Season 1 Ends Without Airing Sarah Palin Segment

Apart from the situation with Booker, there’s another “I am Spartacus” moment taking place in American politics — sort of.

On Wednesday, the New York Times published an anonymous op-ed it says was written by a senior member of the Trump White House. The article, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance in the Trump Administration,” talked about the author’s work with others in the administration to curb Donald Trump’s worst impulses as president and actively undermine some parts of his agenda, for the good of the country.

Speculation has run rampant as to who exactly might have written the article. Some think the use of the word “lodestar” might mean that it’s Vice President Mike Pence, since that’s a term he uses a lot in speeches — or that someone might be trying to set Pence up.

Also Read: That Time Sacha Baron Cohen Interviewed Donald Trump on 'Da Ali G Show' (Video)

Thursday saw many officials denying they were responsible for the article, which led to many on Twitter calling it an “I am not Spartacus” moment. It’s a joke at the expense of those officials by those who see major problems in Trump’s presidency.

Rather than officials coming together in solidarity with their colleague, who wrote that they and others are working to protect the country from its leadership, critics see officials as stepping back to leave whoever wrote the article to take the punishment, and save themselves.

These are two cases of the “Spartacus” reference in action, one meant to praise people for standing up for their principles, and the other used to mock folks who seemingly refuse to do so. As many have pointed out in reference to Booker’s “Spartacus” mention, though, it’s worth noting that things didn’t work out too well for Spartacus in the end. That’s kind of the point, though — at least he’s remembered.

Related stories from TheWrap:

19 Times Donald Trump and Co. Were Confused About History, Including Canada Burning Down the White House (Photos)

17 Times Fox News Hosts Criticized Donald Trump, From Charlottesville to Helsinki (Photos)

12 Times Merriam-Webster Dictionary's Twitter Trolled Trump Team – With English (Photos)

Joe Arpaio Tells Sacha Baron Cohen 'It Wouldn't Surprise Me' If Trump Had a 'Golden Shower'

Everyone Made the Same 'Simpsons' Joke About Trump's Russia Walkback: 'Oh, You Were Saying Boo-urns' | 9/6/18

President Trump is spending big on Google advertisements, despite saying the tech stalwart is “suppressing” conservative voices.

According to Google’s hub for tracking political spending, Trump — via the “Trump Make America Great Again Committee” — has dropped $720,500 on Google ads since the start of June. (The ad tracking tool shares data on spending since May 31 of this year.) As of Wednesday, that makes Trump the second-biggest spender on Google political ads, behind One Nation, the Karl Rove-linked organization that’s supporting Republicans in the 2018 U.S. midterms. As recently as Aug. 16, Trump was leading the pack when it came to Google political marketing.

Nearly all of the president’s Google budget goes towards YouTube, its massive video site.

Also Read: Michael Cohen Attorney Outs Himself as Source of Trump-Russia CNN Report

“Tell Congress: You Want The Wall!” reads on recent YouTube ad. “Do you trust the mainstream media to put the interests of Americans first?” reads another ad, while funneling viewers to a survey on his campaign’s site.

While Trump’s campaign apparently finds Google ads effective, he ripped the company on Tuesday, attacking the search engine for what he said was the unfair promotion of the “fake news media.”

“Google search results for “Trump News” shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent,” Trump tweeted.

Also Read: CNN Reporters Defend Trump-Russia Piece in Wake of Blowback: 'CNN Stands by Its Story'

Google pushed back against the president’s tweets, saying in a statement to TheWrap that its “search is not used to set a political agenda and we don’t bias our results toward any political ideology.”

Trump’s spending on Google ads has swiftly declined in recent weeks. After putting about $114,000 into ads during the first week of August, the president’s spending dropped to $44,000 during the third week of the month, according to Google’s tracking tool.

President Trump is Google’s second biggest spender on political ads, but he’s cut down on spending in recent weeks (via Google)

Also Read: Conservative Facebook Employees Rail Against 'Intolerant' Political Culture

Trump also called out Facebook in his criticism of Silicon Valley on Tuesday, saying “they are really treading on very, very troubled territory and they have to be careful.” But Trump is still ponying up for Facebook ads, too. A recent NYU study showed the president was Facebook’s top political advertiser, spending about $275,000 on ads between May and mid-July.

Related stories from TheWrap:

CNN Reporters Defend Trump-Russia Piece in Wake of Blowback: 'CNN Stands by Its Story'

Michael Cohen Attorney Outs Himself as Source of Trump-Russia CNN Report

Trump Slams 'Rigged' Google for 'Suppressing Voices of Conservatives' | 8/29/18
Russian officials said the action star’s new role would include promoting cooperation in culture, arts and youth exchanges. The position is unpaid. | 8/6/18

Steven Seagal has been appointed as a “special representative” to improve relations between Russians and Americans, Russia’s Foreign Ministry announced this weekend.

According to a CNN translation of the ministry’s announcement, Seagal has been hired to “promote the further development of Russian-American relations in the humanitarian sphere, including interaction in the field of culture, art, public and youth exchanges and more.”

Also Read: This MSNBC Contributor Cited 9/11, Pearl Harbor and Kristallnacht to Assess Trump-Putin Summit

Seagal, whose mother was born in Vladivostok and who became a Russian citizen in 2016, is reportedly a close friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a 2013 interview with Russian international television network RT, Seagal said he considered Putin to be “one of the greatest world leaders, if not the greatest world leader, alive today.” He has also praised Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and has been banned from entering Ukraine for five years with the government there labeling him a security threat.

The Los Angeles Police Department is currently investigating Seagal for a sexual assault case from 2005. Several women in Hollywood, including Jenny McCarthy and former James Bond actress Rachel Grant, have accused Seagal of sexual offenses, all of which the actor has denied.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Steven Seagal Accusers Seek Legal Action: 'This Is About Accountability'

Steven Seagal Sex Misconduct Case Under Review by LA County DA's Office

3 Things Steven Seagal Got Wrong In His Response to Our Report About the Rape Accusation Against Him | 8/5/18

With each passing day, a new public opinion article appears or U.S. government official pronounces how the open internet is abetting some discovered catastrophic effects on our societal institutions. In just one week, the examples include increased information on FSB & GRU attacks on electoral systems and infrastructure, Trump's obliging tactical destruction of societal norms and propagation of the QAnon cult, U.S government agency officials playing "cyber security spin-the-bottle" at press conferences, and the "weaponization" of Facebook noted recently by the Valley's venerable "recoder" in the New York Times. With these constant wacks upside the head, one begins to understand that the internet as it exists in the U.S. is a constantly evolving Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) where we wait each day for some new attack to emerge with no end in sight.

What is amazing about all of these contemporary developments is that the DARPA Director who originally approved the development of its internet initiative in the 1970s, Steve Lukasik, has been warning of the dangers of an open internet since it found its way into the public infrastructure in the 1990s. He pulled together an initial expert team in the mid-90s supported by NSA, and spent the next decade hosting extraordinary Red Team specialists and producing innumerable DOD reports on the multiple weaponizations of the open internet for kinetic attacks. Most were FOUO but widely known in the national security community. Several were made publicly available. As perhaps the nation's most prominent national security scientist on detecting and mitigating Weapons of Mass Destruction over a 60 year period, Lukasik knew the subject matter well.

One of Lukasik's last reports in the DOD WMD series was prepared in 2007 for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and entitled "Mass — Effect Network Attacks: a Safe and Efficient Terrorist Strategy." Over that decade period, he began to shift the focus from "kinetic" WMDs to non-kinetic weapons and the paper "looks fifteen years ahead." It is now eleven years later and strikingly accurate. Non-kinetic WMDs have a significant tactical advantage as they are diffuse without attribution, can be more easily hidden and don't invite kinetic responses.

In the typical meticulous analytical style of DARPA's most highly-regarded Emeritus Director, his analysis proceeds in three steps:

The first, and simplest, part is to collect ideas relating to the future state of network technologies and functionalities and to project trends observed among network users to see how new technology may be used and, more to the point, misused. The second step is to identify a number of possible attacks, enabled under future network environments, that have the potential for producing mass effects. Complementing this perspective of the offense, the third section outlines various kinds of defender responses.

He begins with a note that,

Network vulnerabilities and their consequences have been studied since the first development of network technology by the Department of Defense. In the vastly simpler days of the ARPANET, when links were few and nodes were trusted, the concern was reading or changing packets in transit, and NSA applied their talents to link encryption.

In the last sentence, above, he reveals little-known facts about the DARPA TCP/IP internet platform for its twenty years prior to becoming available to the public in the mid-90s. Namely that it was regarded by DARPA's own leadership as so vulnerable that every connected host computer was tightly controlled, every user well known, all the links encrypted at the bit level for years, managed out of a common Network Operations Center, and every packet of traffic was observed and characterized with derived metadata.

As the report projects the evolution of both the network and applications, it noted that "mass effect" weapons on public institutions would emerge as the weapon of choice about the current timeframe. It also notes that the continued pursuit of "an open internet" would significantly decrease the barriers to intrusion leading to ever more tailored weapon disasters.

The paper describes how the community of cyber attackers would evolve. It notes that "Destructive cyber attacks, being less directly violent, and considerably safer to the perpetrator, may appeal to a larger fraction of the population than those who commit physical violence." It cites other findings that "Cybercrime and the criminals behind malware are getting more and more organized. They can afford to hire professionals, and it is becoming a business for many people."

It is, however, the portrayal of "the future cyberspace battlefield" and the transition to "mass effect attacks" that are especially prescient. Lukasik describes an expansion from economy-oriented network attacks to people-oriented attacks. The latter consist of the following — each of which he describes in considerable detail… in 2007.

  • Destroying trust within populations
  • Wearing down resistance of population to a change in government policy
  • Reputation assassination
  • Destroying confidence in elites

In the conclusion, the report notes that,

Technical vulnerabilities, even when recognized, are only the visible part of the problem. The hidden part of the problem is the level of maliciousness and malevolence that rides on networked technology. Old-time hacking has been augmented by mature, capable, innovative professionals intent on doing real damage to individuals and to institutions.

Perhaps Lukasik's most significant part of the conclusion — and one he has made many times in U.S. national security settings — is that "architectural thinking about networks must abandon the paradigm that everything is best connected to everything. There is a need for an antinetworking discipline to better clarify the tradeoffs." Can Washington, however, ever understand this critical change of direction?

Cyber Whiplash: pushing the Open Internet weapon abroad?

Washington has never been noted for its effective inter-agency coordination, and long been dysfunctional. The Trump Administration has raised the dystopia to levels never before witnessed. As an example, one can get real "cyber whiplash" when in the same month, you have the State Department calling for coordination among allies to deal with internet soft WMD activities, and just five short blocks away, the Commerce Department advocating an Open Internet international policy. The latter, of course, evokes life in an alternative universe where the internet brings a cornucopia of goodness for all, and rails against anyone who would impede the openness.

Amusingly, the Commerce proceeding to "identify the most important issues facing the internet globally" also pushes the great benefit of VPNs while ignoring Russia's FSB and GRU using the same technologies to attack the U.S. It is not clear where this Open Internet Kool-aid will be fed internationally, but the utter obliviousness to major contemporary developments is difficult to comprehend. (Hint: the rest of the world is not this clueless.) What is especially ironic if not amusing is that — as Morozov repeatedly points out — it was cyber-utopians and self-serving Silicon Valley lobbyists in the Clinton and Obama Administrations that created these nationally self-destructive policies. But then, bureaucratic fiefdoms are frequently on auto-pilot.

The Future: closed interoperable internets

The good news is that outside the Washington Beltway of encapsulated delusion, and especially in international industry and multilateral venues today, Lukasik's exhortation for a fundamental change in network security architecture requirements is well understood. There is considerable work on arrays of new security mechanisms and platforms for closed interoperable internets coupled with necessary security controls. A principal example are NFV-SDNs manifested as 5G mobile infrastructure. These new platforms may not remedy some of the damage already done to societal norms and institutions, but they set a direction for technical, operational, and normative solutions.

An additional challenge going forward, however, is the growing cyber-sinophobia that has been dramatically exacerbated by Trump. China is by far the largest market for network-based products and services, and Chinese companies are by far the largest participants in scores of industry and multilateral venues deploying and evolving the essential network security solutions to mitigate internet mass-effect WMDs. Although the manner in which the solutions are deployed in China may not always comport with Western views, they are based on a culture of successful self-preservation of the Middle-Kingdom over many millennia.

The U.S. is now faced with a choice between cooperation in implementing and evolving similar solutions itself or suffering ever more damaging mass effect attacks by domestic and foreign adversaries. The FSB and GRU are no doubt betting on the latter for the immediate future. Hopefully, they are wrong.

Written by Anthony Rutkowski, Principal, Netmagic Associates LLC | 8/4/18

The parallels between Alison Brie’s “GLOW” character Zoya the Destroya and real-life WWE Hall of Famer Nikolai Volkoff are unmistakable. So when news broke that Volkoff died Sunday just as Netflix’s day at the Television Critics Association press tour was getting underway, TheWrap had to ask Brie if she based Zoya after “the Russian villain.”

As it turns out, even though Brie’s fictional in-ring persona is a Russian villain herself, the baddie wasn’t created with the late Volkoff in mind.

“No, I mean, I’m just learning that from you now,” Brie replied, when TheWrap asked the actress if she was aware of Volkoff’s death and if she had she taken any inspiration from him when crafting her character. “I’ve not based anything off of his work. Much of the research I do for the show is so specific to G.L.O.W., because it was a bit outside-the-box of mainstream wrestling, even when they were making it.”

Also Read: Nikolai Volkoff, WWE Hall of Famer, Dies at 70

“So, [Col.] Ninotchka, the [real-life] Russian character on G.L.O.W., had been more of an inspiration to me, certainly trying to look more at women and the way they were doing that,” she continued, “but I’m very sad to hear that.”

Later, TheWrap spoke with co-creators/showrunners Carly Mensch and Liz Flahive to see if they had looked to Volkoff at all when shaping the fake Soviet Union resident who is at war with “GLOW”s American sweetheart, Liberty Belle (Betty Gilpin). The answer is no. But they see why one would make the connection.

Also Read: 'Glow': 10 Most Relatable One-Liners in Netflix Comedy (Photos)

“Stereotypes are tricky that way,” Mensch told TheWrap. “Because look, it’s 1985, the U.S. vs. Russia–“

“Have you seen ‘Rocky?'” Flahive said, jumping in to finish her partner’s thought.

“I think what we’re talking about in terms of a Russian wrestler in an America vs. Russia story is also trying to tap into the culture of the time, and the boogeyman of the time,” Flahive said.

“And we definitely watched tons of movies where there were Russian villains,” Mensch added. “We did a bunch of outside of the ring, ‘How did 1980’s cinema portray Russians?’ [research]… Wrestling is always going to be a window into the stereotypes of the time and you kind of drape them on people.”

Also Read: 'GLOW' Season 2 Trailer: Newfound Fame Brings Out the Weirdos, Coke and Cancellation (Video)

“And we also have a Beirut and there is an Iron Sheik,” Mensch said, referencing Sunita Mani’s character, Arthie, who has the Middle Eastern in-ring persona of Beirut the Mad Bomber, and the real-life WWE star who was Volkoff’s tag team partner. “I think there are just certain stereotypes that like, you know, if you’re the boogeyman of the times it’s kind of unavoidable to become a wrestling character. And I think that we tried to forge our own, but knowing that’s like a giant fear, a national fear of the ’80s.”

Related stories from TheWrap:

Nikolai Volkoff, WWE Hall of Famer, Dies at 70

Brian Christopher, Former WWE Wrestler, Dies at 46 in Apparent Suicide

'Glow': 10 Most Relatable One-Liners in Netflix Comedy (Photos)

'GLOW' Season 2 Trailer: Newfound Fame Brings Out the Weirdos, Coke and Cancellation (Video) | 7/30/18

Don’t hold your breath waiting for “The Simpsons” to ditch Apu.

“The Simpsons” creator Matt Groening came to quick defense of the beloved Indian-American cashier, Apu on his long-running animated series, telling reporters at the Television Critics Association press tour on Sunday that retiring the character (or recasting him) has not come up in conversation with the show’s producers.

“Haven’t talked about it. I’m proud of everything we do on ‘The Simpsons.’ But I’m here to talk about ‘Disenchantment,'” Groening said, sidestepping the issue.

Also Read: Everyone Made the Same 'Simpsons' Joke About Trump's Russia Walkback: 'Oh, You Were Saying Boo-urns'

Yes, Groening was on hand to discuss his new animated show for Netflix, starring Abbi Jacobson and Eric Andre. Still, the question over the future of Apu has followed Groening in recent months, after filmmaker Hari Kondabolu made “The Problem With Apu,” a documentary accusing the character of perpetuating negative stereotypes.

Groening already made his displeasure with the criticism of Apu known in April, telling USA Today, “I think it’s a time in our culture where people love to pretend they’re offended.” He expanded on those comments earlier this month to The New York Times.

“Well, I love Apu. I love the character, and it makes me feel bad that it makes other people feel bad,” said Groening. “But on the other hand, it’s tainted now — the conversation, there’s no nuance to the conversation now. It seems very, very clunky. I love the character. I love the show.”

Also Read: 'Simpsons' Showrunner Answers Ted Cruz Insult: 'I Wouldn't Be So Quick to Write Off Lisa's Vote'

Hank Azaria — who voices Apu, as well as several other characters on “The Simpsons” – told Stephen Colbert in April that he’d be “perfectly happy and willing to step aside” from playing the character.

“Or help transition it into something new,” Azaria continued. “I really hope that’s what ‘The Simpsons’ does. It not only makes sense, it just feels like the right thing to do to me.”

Groening’s comments on Sunday also seemed at odds with what “The Simpsons” producer Mike Reiss recently told Joe Scarborough. Reiss said the documentary was late to conversation because Apu “hasn’t been on the show in three years. We put him out to pasture. No one seems to notice.” Apu did make an appearance in the Season 28 episode “Monty Burn’s Fleeing Circus” in 2016, however.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Netflix 'Would Be Happy' to Do More 'Master of None' – 'When Aziz Is Ready'

Netflix Originals Boss 'Not Aware of Any Conversations' to Save 'Timeless' or 'Shadowhunters'

Netflix Orders Dead-DJ Drama 'White Lines' From 'The Crown' Producers | 7/30/18
On Thursday, July 26, many Russians could see the phantom of the good old iron curtain falling between Russia and the West. The news came from the press secretary of the Russian Union of Travel Industry, Irina Tyurina. Last week, United Russia MPs proposed amending the federal law about the procedure to leave and enter the territory of the Russian Federation. In accordance with these amendments, the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs should hold mandatory accreditation of all companies rendering intermediary visa registration services to Russian citizens. In order to obtain accreditation, a visa issuance company is supposed to have representative offices in at least 20 regions of the Russian Federation, whereas the share of foreign participation in the authorized capital of the company should not exceed 20 percent. In addition, applicants should have certified technical means to process confidential information (including biometric personal data). The amendments also require at least three years of experience in collecting and processing documents for obtaining visas on behalf of diplomatic missions and consular missions.According to the press secretary of the Russian Union of Travel Industry, Irina Tyurina, none of  existing operators can meet the criteria proposed in the draft law. For example, it is unclear how they should comply with the requirement of foreign participation. Presently, there are six companies that run visa service centers in Russia: VFS Global, GVCW - Greece, VMS - Italy, BLS - Spain, India, TLS - Great Britain, Switzerland, Belgium and Pony Express. The information on each of these companies is available to the public in the state register of legal entities.It is unlikely that these companies can be replaced with Russian ones: even if they meet all other requirements, Russian companies will not have three years of experience in rendering visa services. Needless to say that the adoption of amendments will trigger a mirror response from other countries. In this case, big plans to attract foreign tourists to Russia, especially after the World Cup, may not materialize.To make matters worse, residents of Russians regions will have to come to Moscow to get a visa to a foreign country. They will also have to spend many hours standing in long lines to visa departments of foreign embassies, as it was practiced during the 2000s. In a nutshell, all this is nothing but bad news that, if it becomes real, will complicate the lives of all Russian travelers. The news triggered countless "iron curtain" discussions in social media in Russia. The "iron curtain" has many holes in it as Russia has visa-free regime with many countries. Yet, the curtain would be very strong when it comes to a trip to Europe or to the States. Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee for Physical Culture, Sport, Tourism and Youth Affairs, Sergei Krivonosov, (United Russia) said that the Russian authorities, on the contrary, seek to minimize visa restrictions."At the initiative of the president, we are currently preparing proposals to simplify visa procedures. There are a number of countries that have already simplified the procedure to issue visas for Russian citizens. I haven't heard of the initiative that you're talking about. The State Duma's Subcommittee on Tourism (Sergei Krivonosov heads it - ed.) works to simplify visa procedures," the MP told Pravda.Ru. "We do want to make the procedure simpler, because we've had problems with bankruptcies of tour operators. We believe that an electronic visa can help. I am sure that there is no iron curtain of any type involved," Sergei Krivonosov added. Oleg ArtyukovPravda.Ru Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru
Grafting interactive culture onto wilder urban landscapes, Zaryadye Park in Moscow aspires to be the emblematic park of the 21st century. | 7/25/18

It’s been 20 years since two Lindsay Lohans stole the hearts of moviegoers in “The Parent Trap,” the 1998 remake of the 1961 film of the same name. And Elaine Hendrix, who played Meredith Blake a.k.a. evil stepmother-to-be a.k.a. Cruella de Vil in the film, spoke with TheWrap about working alongside a young Lohan, Dennis Quaid and the late Natasha Richardson, as well as the famous lizard scene and the impact of the film on modern pop culture.

“It’s one of those things where, living it as intimately as I did, it feels like it was just yesterday. But on the other hand, it was 20 years ago!” Hendrix told TheWrap. “I have so many distinct memories from it but I’m also like, ‘dang where did the time go?!'”

She added that she sees people dressed up as Meredith Blake for Halloween, and said, “I had no idea it was going to impact people in this way. I had no idea you and I would be having this conversation now, 20 years later!”

Also Read: 'The Parent Trap' Star Hayley Mills: Thank God I Broke Out Long Before Instagram (Guest Blog)

Not only does she get recognized on the street (still to this day) but she said she receives a lot of fan mail from people sharing their personal story and connection to the film, which was directed by Nancy Meyers.

“One of the greatest moment from the film was when I received a fan letter from this young man in Russia, and he told me he grew up in an orphanage and they had nothing, but they would watch movies every Friday night, and ‘The Parent Trap’ was one of them,” she recalled. “How much joy that movie brought to the kids in the orphanage — I get really teary-eyed and I think, holy s—, that’s the beauty of Natasha [Richardson] and Dennis [Quaid] and this journey they took us on.”

Of course, Hendrix’s most iconic scene depicted her prissy city girl Meredith on hike with the twins (both played by Lohan) and their father — one that ended in a camping trip disaster: A lizard creeps into her mouth.

“What’s funny with Meredith is that she says she’s not a big outdoors type of girl, but me, I’m totally a mountain girl!” she said. “I love lizards and snakes and camping. That whole camping scene was 100 percent acting, and I had to fake that I couldn’t hike and that I didn’t like the lizard. Look, that sequence involved a real lizard, a toy lizard and a computer lizard, so watch and see what you think is what.”

Hendrix said she was the 433rd actress to audition for the role of Meredith Blake, and remembered a few moments from set, specifically involving Lohan.

Also Read: Lindsay Lohan Gets Run Down Again in 'Grand Theft Auto' Lawsuit

“I remember Lindsay and I dancing a lot together in the hair and makeup trailer,” she said. “We hugged a lot. We rapped a lot — most of my scenes were with her and Dennis, so we spent a lot of time together. She was a hard worker, but she was still a kid and this business is hard enough so we had an extra sense of making it fun because she was a kid and we didn’t want to burn her out.”

She said she hasn’t connected with Lohan since filming on “The Parent Trap” ended, but she’s ran into Quaid a few times. Of course, the late Natasha Richardson was also an important part of the movie, and Hendrix said she recalled witnessing how loving Richardson’s relationship was with her husband Liam Neeson.

“She was so lovely — she just radiated everywhere she went,” she said. “She actually lit up the room and was so in love with Liam… it was so clear they were deeply in love and that was the real deal. My impression is that she comes across as this perfect mom and woman in the film, and she was very much like that in real life. I wanted her to be my mom!”

“The Parent Trap” will have a lasting impact on generations to come, said Hendrix.

“It’s always there in the culture somewhere,” she said. “It has this magic to do with the perfect storm, with Disney, Nancy Meyers, the cast, the script, the style, the location — capturing the remake of a classic movie for a whole new generation, capturing a universal theme of finding your tribe… It’s a wild phenomenon.”

Related stories from TheWrap:

Lindsay Lohan Offers Legal Help to Trump

Lindsay Lohan Lands Perfect Gig, as Spokesperson for

Lindsay Lohan Wants to Star in Joss Whedon's 'Batgirl' Movie | 7/21/18

Donald Trump offered a pretty flimsy explanation Tuesday for the Russia-favoring remarks he made in Helsinki — and it had lots of people clowning him with the same classic gag from “The Simpsons.”

On Monday, Trump and Vladimir Putin took part in a joint press conference after their personal meeting, during which Trump was asked if he would rebuke Putin for Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Trump shocked the nation when he sided with Putin and against the conclusion by U.S. intelligence organizations that there was a coordinated social media and hacking campaign in 2016, and that Russia was involved.

“My people came to me… they said they think it’s Russia,” Trump said. “I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be….”

Also Read: This 'Infinity War' Meme Sums Up the Trump-Putin Summit Weirdly Really Well

But on Tuesday, after nearly a day of enormous criticism from across the political spectrum, including even segments of Fox News, Trump attempted “clarify” his remarks by claiming he actually meant the exact opposite. “I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t’ and the sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.'” Trump told reporters.

Also Read: Trevor Noah on Trump's Attempt to 'Clarify' Russia Remarks: 'Get the F-- Outta Here' (Video)

As you might expect, a great many people simply didn’t buy Trump’s line of defense, and they swarmed social media to mock it. Many goofed on his claim at misspeaking by citing a concept that children everywhere know extremely very well: “Opposite Day.”

The president has clarified that the Helsinki summit happened on Opposite Day. Ever heard of it, idiots???

— erin ryan (@morninggloria) July 17, 2018

Trump to Issue Executive Order Declaring Monday Was Opposite Day, In Bid To Retroactively Withdraw Treason Admission

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) July 17, 2018

Also Read: Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Who Is America?' Characters Have Been Skulking Around Online for Months

"what if we just say it was opposite day"

"was it opposite day though?"

"hm, good point. [gets up to yell down the hall] YO CAN SOMEONE CHECK IF YESTERDAY WAS OPPOSITE DAY"

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) July 17, 2018

Others noted the apparent absurdity of the statement in its own context.

I accidentally said Jeffrey Dahmer never killed anyone because he said so, but I meant to say I see no reason why it wouldn’t be Dahmer who might have maybe killed some people, who knows.

This isn’t a correction nor an apology. How fucking stupid do you think we are? #treason

— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) July 17, 2018

It can be so easy to forget a “not” at a crucial time, for instance in the sentence “I love you” or “There were very fine people on both sides here in Charlottesville.”

— Alexandra Petri (@petridishes) July 17, 2018

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Clarification by Donald J. Trump: Where he said "will" he meant "won't."

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) July 17, 2018

I would say that I completely believe President Trump misspoke and that he has full faith and confidence in the members of our intelligence community and understands that Putin and Russia were fully responsible for intervening in our election.

Sorry. I meant wouldn’t.

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) July 17, 2018

Still others imagined how such a thing would look said by pop culture characters.

I actually meant to say “do not hail Hydra.”

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) July 17, 2018

"I misspoke yesterday."

— Michael Okuda (@MikeOkuda) July 18, 2018

Also Read: Watch Sacha Baron Cohen Clown Pro-Gun Republicans on 'Who Is America?': 'Happy Shooting, Kids' (Video)

Of course, as with all things, there was also a reference to “The Simpsons” to be made — specifically this one, which a lot of people thought of:

I wasn’t saying boo, I was saying boo-urns

— Otto Von Biz Markie (@Passionweiss) July 17, 2018

Oh. I see. You were saying “Boo-urns.”

— Craig Mazin (@clmazin) July 18, 2018

Also Read: 19 Times Donald Trump and Co. Were Confused About History, Including Canada Burning Down the White House (Photos)

He was saying "Boo-urns"

— Murtaza Mohammad Hussain (@MazMHussain) July 17, 2018


— Mark Leon Goldberg (@MarkLGoldberg) July 17, 2018

Trump was actually saying “boo-urns”

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) July 17, 2018

Related stories from TheWrap:

This 'Infinity War' Meme Sums Up the Trump-Putin Summit Weirdly Really Well

Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Who Is America?' Characters Have Been Skulking Around Online for Months

Trevor Noah on Trump's Attempt to 'Clarify' Russia Remarks: 'Get the F— Outta Here' (Video)

Watch Sacha Baron Cohen Clown Pro-Gun Republicans on 'Who Is America?': 'Happy Shooting, Kids' (Video)

That Time Sacha Baron Cohen Interviewed Donald Trump on 'Da Ali G Show' (Video) | 7/18/18