For someone who knows a thing or two about media stunts, Donald Trump is very upset over Sacha Baron Cohen's Oscars prank Sunday night. And we think we know why.
This morning, Trump took to Twitter to voice displeasure with Baron Cohen's red carpet prank at the Oscars, where the British comedian threw fake ashes on red carpet commentator Ryan Seacrest while in garb of his new character, General Aladeen, to promote his upcoming film "The Dictator." Trump said:
@SachaBaronCohen is a moron who should have been pummeled by the weak and pathetic security person who stood watching as he poured ashes over @RyanSeacrest, a wonderful guy, at the Academy Award's red carpet. The security person totally froze--he should be fired.
(It should be noted that the Twitter account @SachaBaronCohen does not appear to be affiliated with the actor, as it only has one tweet, from July 2008, that reads "Sherlock Holmes.")
But Trump's rage didn't end there. He took to YouTube to expand on his displeasure, calling Baron Cohen a "third-rate character" and saying that his stunt was "disgraceful." He also continued to rail on the security guard at the scene, saying he "ought to be fired immediately."
"I only wish the security guard... goes to school to learn how to be security. You don't know, man."
Trump has never been one to keep his thoughts to himself, but this show-biz stunt seems a little strange to inspire such lambasting, even by The Donald's standards. Perhaps his vitriol can be explained by the fact that Trump himself was the victim of another Baron Cohen character, Ali G, in 2003.
WATCH:
In the video, Trump also calls out "Vanity Fair" for throwing a bad Oscar afterparty in Los Angeles, citing anonymous sources. As we all know, his remote intelligence gathering has been spot-on in the past.
"I hear that the absolute worst party of the evening was the 'Vanity Fair' party," Trump says, clearly sitting in his New York office. "It was boring, people were sleeping, nobody enjoyed it, there was no good feeling." He went on to mourn the venerable magazine as a once-great publication that has lost its way, and posited that its Oscar party reflected this.
He also thinks the party was "symblematic" of the print journalism industry.
Surely the publication should ask Trump for some party-planning tips, as he only has the best interests of the magazine in mind. Why else would he have mailed them printed-out blog entries from VanityFair.com writer Juli Weiner scrawled with his own handwritten notes last November if not to offer his special brand of constructive criticism?