The Editorial Board, USA TODAY
Published 6:31 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2018 | Updated 6:35 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2018

Maybe Manafort hopes Donald Trump will pardon him, though that would be a naked, power-abusing act of self-preservation: Our view

One of President Donald Trump’s recent Twitter tirades against Robert Mueller snarled that the special counsel’s investigation is “disgraced and discredited.” 

By obtaining the conviction of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on eight counts of tax evasion and bank fraud, Mueller’s team again demonstrated that it is neither. In fact, Mueller’s inquiry is crucial to upholding the rule of law.

At a minimum, Tuesday afternoon’s split-screen images of two former top Trump operatives — Manafort and longtime lawyer Michael Cohen — convicted of or copping to eight counts apiece was an embarrassment to a president who promised to hire “only the best people.”

More ominously for the White House, Cohen, in pleading guilty to to bank fraud, tax evasion and campaign-finance felonies, directly implicated Trump in a federal crime: hush money payments to two women at Trump’s direction during the 2016 campaign. 

OPPOSING VIEW: Manafort case had nothing to do with Russia

Although not directly related to the campaign, the Manafort case was the first jury trial test for Mueller’s team. Any trial is unpredictable (remember O.J. Simpson’s?). Convincing 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort is a bona fide crook — including on five counts of tax evasion and two allegations of bank fraud — adds at least a modicum of luster to Mueller’s reputation as a credible pursuer of justice.

Commenting after the verdict, Trump emphasized that Manafort’s trial had nothing to do with alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the heart of Mueller’s mandate, and repeated his “witch hunt” mantra.

Actually, the Manafort conviction comes on top of the prosecutor’s other accomplishments since his appointment in May 2017: obtaining charges, indictments or guilty pleas for 32 other people and three Russian companies. Some witch hunt.

Given what the public already knows about Manafort’s desperate, reckless behavior before and during his tenure as Trump’s campaign chairman, Mueller would have been derelict not to press for cooperation by prosecuting Manafort’s ample crimes.

Here was a man living lavishly off tens of millions earned as a political operative for pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, hiding it from taxes in offshore shell companies. After Yanukovych was driven from power in 2014 and Manafort’s business dried up, he fraudulently borrowed millions to fuel his excesses.

By the time Trump hired him in 2016, Manafort was in dire financial straits, willing even to work for free for a dose of prestige as a top-tier political operative. Accused of owing millions to Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, Manafort quickly explored trading on his new stature “to get whole.”

As campaign chairman, he offered Deripaska — someone close to President Vladimir Putin — private briefings on the campaign. And Manafort attended the infamous June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower with Russians dangling dirt on Hillary Clinton. 

Why on earth wouldn’t Mueller want to know what Manafort knows?

Whether the convicted felon will now finally cooperate to mitigate a potential lengthy sentence in prison is an open question. He faces a second trial in September on charges of money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent for Ukraine.

Maybe Manafort hopes Trump will pardon him, though that would be a naked, power-abusing act of self-preservation by the president. 

Trump would certainly be gloating on Twitter if there had been a hung jury on all of the Manafort charges, or if he had been acquitted. But Tuesday’s verdict shows that despite the endless chaos of the Trump administration, one small corner of government is working with cool efficiency and does its talking in the courtroom.

Mueller is building credibility, one case at a time.

Trump, meanwhile, has already shown himself to be a terrible judge of character by surrounding himself with people like Manafort and Cohen. Whether the president of the United States is also a criminal remains to be seen.

If you can’t see this reader poll, please refresh your page.

 

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2LfoSPV

WASHINGTON – In a development that could pose serious political and legal risks for President Donald Trump, his former lawyer and longtime fixer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court Tuesday to tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign-finance violations.

Cohen’s admission that he made six-figure payments to silence two women in advance of the 2016 election at Trump’s direction thrusts the president into the center of a legal storm.

“This is a real crime,” said Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who is now senior director of the non-profit Campaign Legal Center. “Since modern campaign-finance laws were passed, no sitting president has been found to be involved personally in a campaign-finance violation.”

Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis said Trump should face legal consequences.

Cohen “testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election,” Davis said in a statement.

“If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?” Davis added.

It’s unlikely that Trump would face any immediate criminal charges from his Justice Department. Trump’s lawyers, including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, have said special counsel Robert Mueller already has told them he would abide by a longstanding Department of Justice view that the Constitution bars prosecuting sitting presidents.

But Noble warned that Cohen’s plea deal implicating Trump could be the basis for impeachment should Democrats seize the House majority in November.

And George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin notes that “nothing precludes him from being indicted after he leaves the presidency.” 

A stunning downfall

Cohen’s guilty pleas in a New York courtroom mark a stunning downfall for Trump’s combative former lawyer and longtime fixer who once told  Fox News he would “take a bullet” for the president. 

The campaign-finance violations center on payments to two women who said they had affairs more than a decade ago with the real-estate magnate and reality TV star and received hush money for their silence as he drew closer to the presidency.

Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016. On Tuesday, Cohen pleaded guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution “at the request of a candidate or a campaign.”

Federal prosecutors in New York long have been investigating whether Cohen’s actions, including a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, violated campaign-finance laws.

Daniels, who said she had sex with Trump in 2006, received $130,000 from Cohen days before the election in exchange for her silence.

The money paid to Daniels flowed through Essential Consultants, a limited-liability company Cohen created in Delaware several weeks before the election.After months of denying knowledge of the payments, Trump in May filed a financial disclosure report showing he reimbursed Cohen for the Daniels payment.

In addition, prosecutors zeroed in on a payment to another woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy centerfold who said she had an affair with Trump that began in 2006.

McDougal received a $150,000 payment in August 2016 from the parent company of the National Enquirer. But the tabloid did not publish the story, keeping it out of public view.

The head of the Enquirer’s parent company, David Pecker, is a Trump ally. In a lawsuit she has since settled, McDougal argued that Cohen secretly intervened in the deal she struck with the tabloid’s owner.

Trump and his allies have denied the sexual relationships.

In July, news broke of a secret audio recording made of Trump in 2016 on which Trump appears to indicate he knew of the payment to McDougal, the Playboy model.

Daniels is suing to break free of her confidentiality agreement. That case was delayed because of the ongoing criminal investigation into Cohen in New York.

The actress’ attorney Michael Avenatti said “we’ve been absolutely vindicated” and called for the Daniels’ lawsuit to proceed, so he can question the president under oath.

“The developments of today will permit us to have the stay lifted in the civil case & should also permit us to proceed with an expedited deposition of Trump under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it,” Avenatti tweeted. “We will disclose it all to the public.”

More: Michael Cohen taped Trump discussing payment to a Playboy model

Contributing: Richard Wolf, Kevin Johnson and David Jackson

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2BwDtH3

England batsman Jos Buttler said his maiden Test century was his “proudest moment in an England shirt”.

The 27-year-old, who has made six one-day hundreds, scored 106 as he and Ben Stokes helped take the third Test against India into a final day.

Buttler was recalled to the Test team in May after a 17-month absence and hit his first hundred in his 23rd match.

“It’s been a long time coming and a few months ago it was a million miles away. It’s a huge moment for me,” he said.

Buttler’s partnership of 169 with Stokes, who made 62, meant the players will be back at Trent Bridge on Wednesday morning, although India require only one more wicket with England a distant 210 runs from victory at 311-9.

England began day four on 23-0 but lost both openers within the first 17 minutes of play and were 62-4 when Buttler and Stokes came together.

Their fifth-wicket partnership began at 12:20 BST and went through until 17:30.

“It was very important for us to show a lot of character and fight and not give it to India easily and we did that really well throughout the day, even the two guys at the end there making sure we come back for a fifth day,” Buttler said.

After Buttler was dismissed, Jonny Bairstow, batting with a fractured middle finger, fell next ball, as five wickets tumbled within 14 overs, leaving last-wicket pair Adil Rashid and James Anderson to hold out for the remaining 5.4 overs.

“We knew the second new ball was going to be a big phase – it’s disappointing we couldn’t make it last a bit longer,” Buttler said.

“To show you can do it for your team and that you hopefully belong is maybe the biggest thing.

“I was never sure if I’d ever play Test cricket again so all those thoughts go through your head when you’re out there and start to get close [to a hundred].

“Test cricket is really tough – it tests you in all sorts of ways and this is definitely the proudest moment in an England shirt.

“Something I try and do is read the situation and play accordingly. We were just trying to work through small passages of play. You can’t [overstate] how much luck plays a part – human error, a dropped catch and I wouldn’t be sat here today.

“Trying to focus on the moment and play each ball on its merit within your gameplan is all you’re trying to do and if it means they bowl well and you play out four maidens you try and trust your defence to get you through that.”

‘That partnership can be the benchmark’

Former England captain Michael Vaughan wants the team to learn from the way Stokes and Buttler combated the India bowlers.

“They played the Test match way, with great patience, skill and discipline, the attritional way that is required in Test cricket when the ball is doing a bit – and it was doing plenty,” Vaughan told BBC Test Match Special.

“As they got more and more in and batted more and more time, the ball started to do less and they started to expand into their shots.

“I thought it was a partnership which I hope the England dressing room were studying and say ‘that’s the way we want to play’.

“England have produced it a little bit too late – they are going to lose this Test match – but I think that partnership can be the benchmark of the way that we hope England want to play their Test match cricket going forward.”

Live rounds and tear gas have been fired sporadically in Uganda’s capital Kampala and other areas as military units and anti-riot police try to disperse demonstrations.

Protesters are unhappy about the arrests and alleged beatings of detained opposition legislators critical of President Yoweri Museveni.

Video footage showed demonstrators setting bonfires and barricades on Kampala’s streets on Monday, and police and soldiers trying to remove the roadblocks.

Among those demonstrating were supporters of Robert Kyagulanyi, a pop star turned opposition parliamentarian, who goes by the stage name Bobi Wine. Kyagulanyi was arrested in the northwestern town of Arua last week.

Tensions have simmered in Uganda since Kyagulanyi and his colleagues were detained.

He was taken into custody on suspicion of taking part in the pelting of the presidential convoy with stones. The incident, which occurred during a parliamentary by-election campaign, left car windows smashed.

Museveni posted a statement on his Facebook page on Tuesday to justify the detention of the opposition politicians and their supporters.

“The problem in Arua was caused by Bobi Wine’s group together with Kassiano Wadri, who attacked me, a useless action because I am protected and I can defend myself,” Museveni said.

“The more serious issue is these chronically indisciplined people attacking women and children, destroying people’s property, etc. Who is Bobi Wine or anybody to beat our people and for what?”

Rising opposition

Kyagulanyi is seen by many as the new face of the opposition, barely a year after his entry into politics.

He has built a large youth following through his often biting criticism of Museveni’s government, which he sometimes expresses through his music.

Kyagulanyi, 36, was elected to parliament last year and has since emerged as a powerful voice with his calls for young people to “stand up” and take over the East African country from what he calls the government’s failed leadership.

Officials see his appeal as a threat to Museveni’s hold on power, which is waning because of public anger over deteriorating public services, corruption, and rights abuses.

Many Ugandans have expressed concern for Kyagulanyi’s safety after the country’s deputy prime minister told legislators he had been hospitalised while in custody, without giving further details.

He has not been seen in public since he was detained, and the absence of news has spurred social media campaigns calling for his release.

Only a few members of his family and a handful of colleagues have been able to see him in custody. His brother Eddy Yawe told Al Jazeera the opposition politician is in bad health.

“When I met my brother, he could not walk, he was lifted up by two guys. He could not stand. He could barely breathe. He could not sit on his own,” Yawe said.

“He had pain everywhere… He had lots of complications from [the] pains he was having in his stomach. He told me that they used an iron bar to hit his head, which made him fall down.

“He said as one man was breaking his finger, one was breaking a toe, another one was trying to extract his lips manually, one was pulling his ears and another one was holding his private parts and squeezing them to death.

“He collapsed and when he regained consciousness, he found himself locked up in some kind of container, chained up… He was all bloody and helpless.”

The government has denied allegations of torture.

Trumped-up charges?

The Ugandan government has been accused of stifling dissent through intimidation, beatings, detentions and prosecutions on trumped-up charges.

Kyagulanyi, who is being held at a military prison near Kampala, will appear in court on Thursday.

He, several MPs, and dozens of others have been charged with treason and illegal possession of firearms over their alleged role in the stoning of the president’s convoy.

Medard Sseggona, a lawyer for the defendants, told Al Jazeera the politicians are innocent.

“The charges are not only laughable but ridiculous,” Sseggona said.

Another 68 suspects arrested during two days of demonstrations across the country are also expected to appear in court, with the government not backing down on plans to proceed with prosecutions.

Museveni said the trial “should send a warning to those who are in the habit of miscalculating”. 

Repression

Opposition supporters see the alleged mistreatment of the detained as part of a pattern of repression by Museveni’s security forces, an allegation the government denies.

A man was shot dead and five others wounded in anti-government protests in the town of Mityana.

“The police can use live bullets if they are not equipped with anti-riot equipment and the rioters are on the verge of killing innocent people. That is also possible,” Museveni said.

But Kyagulanyi and his supporters are not giving up.

“He remains unshaken. He remains very strong in spirit, but weak in body. The body is definitely weak because he was really tortured but his spirit and will remain unshaken,” Sseggona said.

“When you know that you are fighting corruption, you are fighting maladministration in your own country, you want to set the country free. It is quite a painful experience to be tortured for what you believe in,” he added.

President for life

Museveni seized power in 1986 and has since been elected five times. The last vote in 2016 was marred by allegations of fraud.

Critics say he is set to rule Uganda for life after parliament passed legislation last year removing a clause in the constitution that had prevented anyone over 75 from holding the presidency.

Museveni, 73, is now able to seek re-election in 2021. His supporters say he has held power for so long because of genuine mass support.

Although Museveni campaigned on his record of establishing peace and stability, some worry that is being eroded the longer he stays in power.

Previous attempts by an opposition leader, Kizza Besigye, to remove him from power were unsuccessful.

Museveni said any attempt by the opposition to cause further unrest will be stopped.

“Those who pretend to support the opposition are misleading them by failing to advise them to stop intimidating and attacking Ugandans. The Ugandans, led by us, will resist them,” he said.

While Kyagulanyi has not made a public statement about his alleged abuse, his brother is convinced his position has not changed.

“He has already paid the cost of freedom. He told me he can die for this country,” Yawe said.

Image: Chip Somodevilla/getty

Facebook knows it has a trust problem. 

In an effort to better manage how its users flag content they object to, the social media giant is planning to rate the trustworthiness of its users on an individual basis. However, the initiative comes at a time when Facebook has lost the confidence of the American people on numerous fronts ranging from its ability to protect users’ private data to the veracity of the information promoted by the platform on News Feed, surveys show. 

The Washington Post reports the company “has begun to assign its users a reputation score, predicting their trustworthiness on a scale from zero to 1.” The score, which was reportedly developed this year, is used for internal calculations by Facebook and does not appear to be displayed in any public capacity. 

Ostensibly, the scores are used to determine which users provide correct feedback about the accuracy of articles shared on the site. Which, if you’re a half-trillion dollar company looking to outsource vital labor to its users, sounds like an OK idea.

However, a lot about just what the so-called trustworthiness score is remains unknown. The Post writes that in addition to a lack of clarity on how they are calculated, we also don’t know all the specific ways in which the scores are used. We don’t even know if everyone on Facebook has a trustworthiness rating, or whether that potentially ignominious ranking is reserved for a lucky few. 

There are some things we do know, however. In March of this year, the Pew Research Center published survey data showing that “[while] a substantial share of Americans get news from Facebook and other social media sites, very few people express much trust in information on these sites.”

Specifically, continues Pew, “[only] 5% of online Americans say they have ‘a lot’ of trust in the information they get from social media sites.”

But the fun doesn’t stop there. The Business Insider Intelligence’s 2018 Digital Trust survey found that 81 percent of those surveyed had “little to no confidence that Facebook will protect their data and privacy.”

Essentially, people neither trust Facebook as company nor as a service. With Facebook now looking to surreptitiously quantify whether or not the people who spend their lives on its site are liars, it seems like the distrust goes both ways.

Facebook, which has credibly been accused of misleading regulators, elected officials, and the press before, disputes the Washington Post’s reporting. When reached for comment, a Facebook spokesperson claimed this was all much ado about nothing. 

“The idea that we have a centralized ‘reputation’ score for people that use Facebook is just plain wrong and the headline in the Washington Post is misleading,” wrote the spokesperson. “What we’re actually doing: We developed a process to protect against people indiscriminately flagging news as fake and attempting to game the system. The reason we do this is to make sure that our fight against misinformation is as effective as possible.”

Which, if accurate, sounds fine. If only there was some sort of way to determine whether or not Facebook is trustworthy. 

Jonathan Turley, Opinion columnist
Published 4:58 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2018 | Updated 5:23 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2018

Paul Manafort’s conviction is just the beginning of proceedings he faces for indictments on foreign lobbying, money laundering and lying to the FBI.

The conviction of Paul Manafort was just about as predictable as a tweet from President Trump in its aftermath. The Manafort verdict confirms a rather obvious assumption that, if you do not take the stand in your own defense and then decline to actually present any defense witnesses (or even a cognizable defense), you are likely to be convicted. The real question should not be how Manafort was convicted but what he is actually trying to achieve in court. He now heads to Washington, D.C. for a second trial. It is less of a second chance as it is a repeat performance for a jury of one: President Donald Trump.

The Virginia trial involved complex and relatively dry transactional crimes in 18 separate counts, including failing to file foreign bank account reports, four counts of bank fraud and five counts of bank fraud conspiracy. These were the counts that Manafort had the best chances of knocking down but he was still convicted on 8 of the 18 counts.

Manafort’s image will get worse in new trial

Manafort elected to divide the cases rather than face a single, unified trial. The reason may be that he believed the Virginia jury pool was better for him and he would succeed in defeating some of those counts or even secure a hung jury in his home state. Moreover, success in Virginia might give sufficient cover to President Trump to finally issue the long-sought pardon for Manafort — citing the failure to convict and the disconnect between the crimes and the original mandate for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. That is if he were acquitted or the jury hung. That didn’t happen.

The problem for Manafort is these trials make it increasingly difficult to portray him as a victim. Indeed, the next trial is likely to remove any lingering doubt about Manafort’s felonious record. The next trial starting September 17th involves allegations of money laundering and foreign lobbying as well as false statements to the FBI. The government is preparing almost three times the number of documents detailing his transactions and associations with an array of sleazy characters around the world.

More: Manafort trial will test Mueller’s Russia investigation and Trump’s ‘witch hunt’ charge

Donald Trump’s reckless tweeting may be foolish, but it isn’t obstruction of justice

Donald Trump has not been ‘exonerated’ on Russia. Congress can make that clear this week.

Manafort’s dealings in the indictment include his involvement working on behalf of a pro-Russian faction in Ukraine. The prosecutors notably held back much of the evidence of Manafort’s Ukrainian dealings in the Virginia trial, but they are likely to unleash that evidence into open court in Washington, D.C. When they do, Manafort’s already tainted image is likely to get much much worse. 

Manafort was working for the interests of one of the most bloodsoaked and sinister figures in Eastern Europe — Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych — who was widely viewed as a Russian stooge who took over the government with the help of Moscow and ultimately did Moscow’s bidding. Not only was Yanukovych accused of massive corruption, but also the murder of protesters and the arrest of political opponents. He accumulated an estimated net worth of $12 billion through alleged pilfering of Ukrainian funds. He ultimately fled to Russia. 

When he fled into Russian exile, Yanokovych took away not only Manafort’s most important client but the source of his wealth. Manafort’s opulent lifestyle now faced a serious downgrade. It was then that the government claims that he began to lie to banks, the IRS, and ultimately investigators. 

Only Trump can keep Manafort out of prison

Manafort, however, does not seem seriously engaged in an effort to seek acquittal. His strategy in Virginia at best was a hung jury strategy that ultimately backfired. In D.C., Manafort is likely to be focused on one juror three blocks away on Pennsylvania Avenue. From the outset, Manafort seemed to accept that he was at best likely to knock down or hang on some counts. He would still be looking at a decade in jail on any counts remaining. Manafort could face an additional 20 years in jail if convicted in Washington. For Manafort, the difference between 10 and 20 years may seem less significant at age 69 than the chance, even a remote chance, of a pardon. 

Since an innocence defense seemed a tad forced, Manafort’s best chance was to make his trial about something other than his crimes. Manafort is hoping that Trump’s visceral dislike for Mueller’s investigation will continue to grow to the point that he is willing to issue a pardon for Manafort to spite Mueller. However, the pardon would have the same fault that Trump long highlighted in the prosecution: a disconnect from the Russian investigation. Just as Mueller has been criticized for pursuing unrelated crimes, a pardon of unrelated crimes raises questions for the White House on why Manafort should be allowed to walk away from crimes committed long before the campaign.

As an attorney, Manafort preferred to work in the shadows for people like Yanukovych who do not improve with sunlight. He was adept at finding ways to capitalize on the sometimes desperate circumstances of his clients. He made tens of millions by advancing his position through the gravitational pull of powerful men. He is still doing that. While relatively passive in his own defense, he is actively staying close to Trump in the hope that a final break with Mueller will be the big break for him. Manafort once said “I work directly for the boss. I listen to everybody, but I have one man whose voice is louder than everybody else’s.” Indeed, that is now the only voice that can now save Paul Manafort.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

 

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2nYNbbQ

Leeds United fought back to preserve their unbeaten start to the season with an exhilarating draw at Swansea City.

Oli McBurnie finished a fine team move to give the vibrant hosts a deserved lead but Kemar Roofe tapped in to level before half-time.

McBurnie restored Swansea’s lead with a superb arcing header.

But Leeds substitute Patrick Bamford set up former Swan Pablo Hernandez to sweep in a low equaliser, taking his side to the top of the Championship.

The draw also maintains Swansea’s unbeaten record and lifts them to third in the table.

And while their effervescent performance will have encouraged manager Graham Potter, the result will be tinged with the disappointment that the Swans were unable to turn their dominance into victory.

As it was, ending Leeds’ perfect start to the season was a commendable achievement in itself, given the Yorkshire club’s form before this fixture.

Leeds had won all three of their previous matches with a swagger, scoring nine goals and playing with the high-octane intensity which has defined the career of their world-renowned manager Marcelo Bielsa.

Swansea, however, had ground their way to two victories and a draw, an impressive feat under Potter considering his limited resources after a summer of stunted transfer activity which prompted strong criticism of the club’s owners.

The Swans continued to confound their off-field concerns with a strident display here, forcing Leeds into mistakes and keeping possession with quick, crisp passing.

Both those qualities were evident for the opening goal, sparked by Leroy Fer – starting for the first time since an Achilles injury in February.

The Dutch midfielder dispossessed Kalvin Phillips before initiating a flowing move, which included passes from Barrie McKay and Bersant Celina and ended with a prodded finish from McBurnie.

Phillips, already booked, was then substituted for Lewis Barker after just 27 minutes as Bielsa readjusted his rattled side.

The bold move was effective, as Leeds settled and equalised against the run of play as Jamie Shackleton’s low cross was converted by Roofe from close range.

The Liberty Stadium was momentarily silenced but, once Swansea started the second half with the same adventure with which they had approached the first, the atmosphere crackled once more.

McBurnie, a tall and rangy nuisance of a striker, led the attack brilliantly.

The Scotland international’s endeavour was rewarded when he stretched backwards to meet Martin Olsson’s excellent cross and loop his header over Bailey Peacock-Farrell and into the far corner.

The 22-year-old was close to a hat-trick against the city of his birth but was thwarted by Peacock-Farrell’s fingertip save – and it was to prove crucial.

When the ball later spun loose on the left wing, Leeds substitute Bamford beat Mike van der Hoorn and raced into the penalty area before crossing for Hernandez, who finished smartly but showed little sign of celebration against his former side.

Swansea still had time for a late chance to win but the electric Bersant Celina saw his shot well saved by Peacock-Farrell.

Swansea City manager Graham Potter said:

“In football you take what you get. For us we focus on the overall performance of the team, what we brought in terms of our character, our attitude and also our quality and courage. We played against a good team and we showed a really good level.

“I’m proud of the players, proud of what they did and proud of the environment we created here. I thought it was a great atmosphere, which contributed to a really good game.

“We had a good intensity to our play. We had a good idea of what we wanted to do and we also had courage as well. Overall, really proud of the players and happy we’ve taken a step forward.”

Leeds United manager Marcelo Bielsa said:

“We didn’t defend very well and this did not allow us to dominate the game with regularity. In the first half Swansea dominated the game.

“It took us almost 25 minutes to get into the game. After their second goal we had greater stability. After we scored again at 2-2 we dominated the game.

“We have won this game and we have lost it too. It was a nice game to watch. There are some important aspects we have to correct.”

Prague, Czech Republic – Fifty years ago Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia to violently quash the democratic reform movement against communism known as the Prague Spring.

Led by Alexander Dubcek, then-newly elected Communist Party leader, Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1968 initiated a process of liberalising a communist regime that had seized power 20 years earlier.

Offering more press freedom, freedom of movement and economic openness, Dubcek served up what was famously coined “socialism with a human face”.

In Moscow, the reforms were viewed as a threat to the Soviet Union’s iron grip on the eastern bloc of satellite states firmly in their control.

On the night of August 20, 1968, thousands of tanks accompanied by 200,000 Warsaw Pact soldiers from Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany and Poland invaded Czechoslovakia.

By the next morning, scores of Czechoslovakians had been killed and the Soviets had occupied the country.

“The Prague Spring was probably the only genuine attempt of liberalisation of the Soviet-style socialism before Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika,” said Matej Bily, a researcher with the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes in Prague.

“The fact that the reform process began in one of the Soviet satellites, and not in Moscow, is also very important.”

At the same time, the invasion served as a turning point for Slavic attitudes towards Russia that has endured ever since.

“Fifty years later, many Czechs are extremely suspicious about Russia and the anti-Russian moods are widespread,” said Bily.

Today, the Prague Spring stands as one of the defining moments in contemporary Czech history.

Still, while Czechs reflect on what transpired 50 years ago, many are worried their fallen oppressor may be back to haunt them as a resurgent communist political party has found its way back into the political mainstream.

After winning October’s parliamentary elections, populist billionaire Prime Minister Andrej Babis was forced to seek the approval of the Communist Party in order to establish a government after most other parties refused to back him.

“Fifty years later, many Czechs are extremely suspicious about Russia and the anti-Russian moods are widespread.”

Matej Bily, a researcher with the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes in Prague

The move brought the communists, who remained only in the shadows of national politics since their rule ended, back to power.

“Very important days and anniversaries like this are full of purpose and reminds us how fragile our democracy really is,” said Ivan Bartos, chairman of the upstart Czech Pirate Party.

“Andrej Babis was the one who introduced them back to power. [The communists] requested positions in state-controlled companies in exchange for their support so now you are paying with something that is not yours for political support,” he said.

“We voted against it and now we have to fight every day.”

Making matters worse, the prime minister has been dogged by a long-running dispute with Slovakia over his registration as an agent of the StB, Czechoslovakia’s communist-era police.

Earlier this year, a Slovak court rejected a demand by Babis to be cleared of his alleged cooperation with the organisation.

Jeering protesters

Delivering a speech on Tuesday to commemorate the occasion of the invasion, Babis was greeted by dozens of jeering protesters.

Blowing whistles and holding placards, demonstrators chanted “shame” as the prime minister struggled to deliver his address.

“It is very ironic and in fact it is dangerous as well. He is trying to capture even more powers in next elections pretending that he is not dangerous for democracy,” said Michal Majzner, a political activist.

“But he already has almost everything – huge fortunes, [control of the] media, intelligence, politics powers … and he has no problems to be supported by extremists.”

But Babis was not the only one to draw criticism as Czech President Milos Zeman, an ardent supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin, refused to make a speech on what for many Czechs is the most important day in modern Czech history.

The move underscores a growing discord between traditional democratic institutions and illiberal factions looking to move away from progressive Western politics.

“We are lucky that the dissidents who wrote our constitution after 1989 were very wise and established an upper chamber of parliament. The upper chamber can effectively block any changes of constitution towards illiberal democracy,” said Majzner.

“That is our big advantage and we need to use it.”

Still, while many opponents are quick to criticise Babis and his allies for elevating the communists in 2018, other analysts warn it is dangerous to compare the situation with what occurred in 1968 while the Czech Republic today maintains a strong rule of law as well as functional democratic institutions.

“It is visible that the communists are growing their political power and have an agreement with the government, but this is not something that is the same as 1968,” said Lubomir Kopecek, a professor of political sciences at Masaryk University in Brno.

Former Donald Trump campaign chairman and lover of ugly-but-expensive suits Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight counts on Tuesday, the first verdict in a case stemming from Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. 

According to CNN, the judge declared a mistrial on 10 counts after the jury could not reach a consensus.

Manafort was charged with money laundering and fraud (18 counts in all) related to millions he made from working for the Ukranian government and bank loans. 

The trial had its fair share of fireworks, including plenty of chuckles about the perks of Manafort’s lavish lifestyle. Who can ever forget the infamous $15,000 ostrich jacket that was entered into evidence?

This trial may be over, but Manafort’s not even done; he faces another trial in D.C. in September for “money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent,” the more serious of the two cases. 

But the internet is ready to roast Manafort now and any verdict will do, it seems. 

Now all we have to do is wait a few more weeks and we get to relive this all over again, proving that the Trump administration is one of those nightmares you never wake up from.