The price of bitcoin has fallen back below $10,000, down 30% from last week’s peak of nearly $14,000.Continuing its wild ride, the digital currency dropped to $9,717 on Tuesday, down 8.1% on the day. Last Wednesday, the cryptocurrency shot up to $13,879, breaking through the $12,000 and $13,000 levels in less than two hours.Bitcoin had languished below $6,000 for months, but was galvanised by Facebook’s plans to create a cryptocurrency called Libra next year.Other digital currencies have also fallen back. Reports that an investor placed a large short order on Sunday, betting that the bitcoin price would go down in coming days, sparked panic among investors.Bitcoin has seen wild swings in the past, and some analysts say it could rise back to $20,000 again – or fall as low as $3,000. In late 2017, it rose to close to $20,000, before a spectacular collapse in 2018.The cryptocurrency’s latest gyrations prompted the US economist Nouriel Roubini, a long-time critic, to say that the bitcoin price would eventually fall to zero. He tweeted: “Its true value is negative, not zero, given its toxic externalities! It will get to zero in due time.”Simon Peters, an analyst at global investment platform eToro, said: “We appear to be in a period of indecision, where the market is figuring out where to go next after its heavy surge and sell-off.”Investors hope Facebook’s entry into digital currencies will bring greater legitimacy to the sector. Regulators around the world have warned that the move could lead to greater controls and tougher regulation to protect consumers.Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, cautiously welcomed Libra. He said the central bank would support new entrants into the UK financial system, but warned that Facebook would need to meet the highest regulatory standards.Bloomberg reported last week that Henry Kravis, the co-founder of the US private equity firm KKR, had become the latest financier to bet on cryptocurrencies. He is investing in a cryptocurrency fund provided by ParaFi Capital. Other high-profile investors include British hedge fund manager Alan Howard, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and US hedge fund manager Louis Bacon. Topics Bitcoin Cryptocurrencies Facebook Investments Financial sector news

The price charts resemble battlefields, with red arrows raining down relentlessly. Since the start of the year, the price of bitcoin has fallen by more than 50%, cutting more than $100 billion from its market capitalization. At the time of writing, Satoshi’s digital gold trades for around $6,400 per coin, a far cry from the $100,000 that some analysts predicted at the beginning of the year.And it’s not just bitcoin.For instance, since recording an all-time high of more than $1,400 in January 2018, ether has similarly plunged. In the past month alone, ether has shed nearly $11 billion in market cap (that’s equivalent to 55,000 Lamborghini Huracáns). Ripple’s XRP, which once hovered near $4 per unit, has also succumbed to gravity, crashing some 90% from its January peak.All things considered, it has been a bloodbath.It’s hard to pinpoint a single reason for the declines, and some coins are already bouncing back from the depths plunged earlier this week. Here are a few of the factors market watchers believe may be contributing to the crypto carnage.Some have posited that blockchain and cryptocurrency projects might be converting their ether reserves into fiat currencies to meet financial obligations. At face value, this appears plausible, as startups incur many expenses during their growth phase. If a collection of companies liquidated the cryptocurrencies—mostly ether—that they raised in ICOs at the same time, they could exert downward pressure on prices.Considering that some startups raised hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crypto, a single company could be responsible for a dip—though probably not one of this depth or duration. While it would be easy to blame large, naive actors, many of these teams are acutely aware of their outsize influence on the markets and they’ve specifically designed conversion strategies to limit their impact on prices. Instead of flooding exchanges with sell orders, they plan ahead, plotting small liquidations spread out over several weeks, if not months.The ICO liquidation theory also fails to answer a basic question: Why now? We’re several months past tax season and some of the largest ICOs (like Tezos) have been converting their assets for quite a while.It’s possible that the price decline reflects a negative feedback loop, a combination of economics and psychology. As crypto investors sell their holdings, they see that prices are falling. This could spook them into selling even more. This is somewhat like a bank run, except investors lose faith in the value of cryptocurrencies rather than the viability of a financial institution.In October last year, Timothy Lee at Ars Technica suggested that a positive feedback loop might be what inflated the cryptocurrency bubble in the first place. We may now be seeing the opposite force in action.Cryptocurrency investors (and especially ethereum backers) may be disappointed (paywall) by the low usage of decentralized applications (dapps) like IDEX, Bancor, and CryptoKitties. These apps run on crypto tokens, and thus generate demand for the assets.But when investors visit a cryptocurrency exchange, they aren’t presented with information about the daily active users on various dapps. They’re generally only presented with the price of an asset and a chart of its history. Crypto trading doesn’t usually incorporate nuanced cash flow analysis or acknowledge anything beyond the price of a token. Ultimately, these digital assets are worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for them, regardless of whether they have uses beyond speculation. These days, buyers aren’t willing to pay as much for cryptocurrencies as they were not that long ago.

House lawmakers are escalating their antitrust investigation of Silicon Valley, issuing expansive requests for internal documents to four of the nation’s largest technology companies.Bipartisan leaders of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee sent letters to Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google on Friday seeking internal communications and documents regarding the use of their market dominance.“Today’s document requests are an important milestone in this investigation as we work to obtain the information that our Members need to make this determination,” Rep. David CicillineDavid Nicola CicillineHouse investigators receive initial documents from top tech companies Celebrating the LGBTQ contribution to progress in business The Memo: Trump's rage may backfire on impeachment MORE (D-R.I.), who chairs the subcommittee and is leading the antitrust investigation, said in a statement.“We expect stakeholders to use this opportunity to provide information to the Committee to ensure that the Internet is an engine for opportunity for everyone, not just a select few gatekeepers.”“This information is key in helping determine whether anticompetitive behavior is occurring, whether our antitrust enforcement agencies should investigate specific issues and whether or not our antitrust laws need improvement to better promote competition in the digital markets,” added Rep. Doug CollinsDouglas (Doug) Allen CollinsHouse investigators receive initial documents from top tech companies US, UK sign agreement allowing British authorities to quickly obtain data from tech giants Joe Lieberman's son running for Senate in Georgia MORE (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the full Judiciary Committee.The panel is requesting communications among each company’s executives, records that were handed over in past antitrust investigation and internal documents detailing their organizational structures. The lawmakers gave each company a deadline of Oct. 14.The requests come as regulators are ratcheting up their scrutiny of the tech giants’ market power.In the past week, Google disclosed that it received a separate investigative records request from the Department of Justice just days before a coalition of 50 attorneys general from across the U.S. launched their own antitrust investigation into the internet search giant.And Facebook revealed over the summer that it is the subject of an antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.Asked for comment by The Hill, a spokeswoman for Google pointed to a blog post published last week by Kent Walker, the company's chief legal officer, promising to cooperate with the flurry of antitrust inquiries."We have answered many questions on these issues over many years, in the United States as well as overseas, across many aspects of our business, so this is not new for us," Walker wrote. "We have always worked constructively with regulators and we will continue to do so."Apple, Amazon and Facebook did not immediately respond when asked for comment.In July, executives from Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google testified before the antitrust subcommittee to defend against the heightening scrutiny. Cicilline later chastised the four executives over their testimony, accusing them of giving “evasive, incomplete, or misleading answers” in response to basic questions about their market power.The requests sent on Friday appear to partly be an attempt to establish whether the companies had any intent to snuff out competition throughout their years of rapid growth. The subcommittee asked each company for internal communications among top executives regarding past acquisitions."I appreciate the willingness of certain tech companies to come before our committee and answer questions," Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the subcommittee's top Republican, said in a statement. "However, we still need more information about their business practices at this fact-finding stage of this investigation. Again, I stress to my colleagues that a bipartisan outcome will require an open-minded process.”The list of documents requested would also shed light on areas of the companies that have been completely opaque to the outside world.The letter to Google parent company Alphabet, for instance, asks for records relating to “Google’s algorithm that determines the ranking of search results, including but not limited to how Google’s algorithm accounts for Google content or services and how Google’s algorithm accounts for non-Google content or services that compete with Google’s offerings.”“The open Internet has delivered enormous benefits to Americans, including a surge of economic opportunity, massive investment, and new pathways for education online,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “But there is growing evidence that a handful of corporations have come to capture an outsized share of online commerce and communications.” “It is increasingly difficult to use the Internet without relying on these services,” Nadler said. “The documents requested will provide the Committee with a better understanding of the degree to which these intermediaries enjoy market power, how they are using that market power, whether they are using their market power in ways that have harmed consumers and competition, and how Congress should respond.”Updated at 11:17 a.m.

Bitcoin’s share of the $628 billion cryptoasset universe has fallen to its lowest ever. While the price of the original and most popular digital coin has stumbled in recent weeks, the market value of others like ethereum and ripple has appreciated steadily, setting consecutive records, according to Coinmarketcap.com.The market value for bitcoin slipped to about 36% overall today (Jan. 2), compared with 87% a year ago. Ripple and ethereum now comprise about 14% each. Bitcoin cash, an offshoot of bitcoin, makes up 7%.Some of the digital assets that have gained in value, like ethereum and ripple, could have more utility and faster processing characteristics than bitcoin, which is sometimes seen as a form of digital gold. Ethereum is used for smart contracts, which are designed to execute on their own. Ripple is touted as a new kind of payment system for banks.One day, cryptoassets will be used as a form of payment, though there’s not much of that happening right now, said Charlie Lee, a former Google engineer and founder of litecoin, in a recent interview with Coindesk. Litecoin processes transactions more quickly than bitcoin and now makes up about 2% of the market value of the crypto universe. Lee suggested that some people are buying the digital currency he developed because bitcoin is so expensive—about $250 versus more than $13,000—and they don’t realize they can buy a fraction of a cryptoasset.Another possibility behind the recent rise of other cryptoassets is that people who fear they missed out on the bitcoin boom are trying to replicate that success by buying some newer digital coin. Valuing cryptoassets is an “effort in behavioral finance” because there’s no intrinsic value to something like bitcoin, said Tony Crescenzi, a market strategist at asset manager Pimco, in a Bloomberg Television interview. “I’d rather have a bond any day,” he said.

In a televised new year’s message to his atrophying nation, Nicolás Maduro struck an upbeat tone. “Victory awaits us! The future awaits us! And everything will be better!” Venezuela’s embattled president insisted, declaring 2019 “the year of fresh starts”.But the sandbags and rifle-toting troops that now encircle the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas suggest far less confidence about the days ahead, as Venezuela sinks deeper into economic ruin and political isolation and questions grow over Maduro’s future.Hugo Chávez’s 56-year-old heir – narrowly elected after his mentor’s 2013 death and then again in disputed elections last May – will begin his second presidential term on Thursday, amid intensifying international condemnation of what critics call his illegitimate and authoritarian rule.Last week, a regional bloc known as the Lima Group turned up the heat, with 13 of its 14 members announcing they would not recognise Maduro’s new six-year term and urging him to step down. Those countries included Brazil, whose new far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, is well-known for his hostility to Maduro and whose pro-Trump foreign minister recently called for Venezuela’s “liberation”.The US has also stepped up pressure ahead of what it calls Maduro’s “sham inauguration” with the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, telling one Brazilian newspaper “several things” could be done to rid Venezuela of Maduro’s “unacceptable” regime. Pompeo did not specify what those “things” might be but the remark echoed Donald Trump’s thinly veiled threat that military action was possible if Maduro did not go voluntarily.Despite the rhetorical war – Maduro recently ordered his troops to prepare to rip out the hearts of “imperialist” invaders – observers still consider a foreign military intervention unlikely.“I don’t see boots on the ground,” said Matias Spektor, an international relations specialist from Brazil’s Getúlio Vargas Foundation.But after years of dawdling, regional patience does appear to be running out, as the situation in Venezuela deteriorates and Latin American politics swerves to the right under leaders such as Bolsonaro, Colombia’s Iván Duque, Chile’s Sebastián Piñera and Argentina’s Mauricio Macri.“The dynamics are changing and they are changing very fast,” said Spektor, calling the rise of those politicians decidedly bad news for Maduro.Spektor said the Lima Group’s unexpectedly firm declaration – which includes plans for financial sanctions, preventing top Venezuela officials entering their countries, and suspending military cooperation – appeared partly designed to persuade the Venezuelan military to abandon their commander-in-chief.“For the regime to collapse you need to get Maduro out of the country and you need to get the military to stop supporting the regime … The way you do that is by sending signals to the military that in the long run if they stick to Maduro and the regime they will lose power,” he said.Latin American governments did not want regime change imposed by outsiders “because they know full well it would backfire – but they do want to see regime change via peaceful means”.Under its new leftist president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico has resisted joining the anti-Maduro offensive, a move decried by human rights activists and Venezuela’s opposition. “I don’t stick my nose into other countries’ affairs,” López Obrador said last week, emphasizing Mexico’s return to a foreign policy of non-intervention.But most Latin American countries are moving in the opposite direction, leaving Maduro increasingly friendless in a region his Bolivarian predecessor, Hugo Chávez, dreamed of uniting during the “pink tide” era of leftist rule.Brazil, in particular, looks poised to play a frontline role in the diplomatic push to force Venezuela’s president out. “In the early days of the administration, my understanding is that people in the Bolsonaro government want to send a very clear and unequivocal signal that Maduro’s costs in the region are about to go up,” said Spektor.Brazil’s foreign minister, Ernesto Araújo, hinted at that harder line this week arguing: “You have to face the threats, and the main one comes from non-democratic regimes that export crime, instability and oppression. You can’t simply wish away dictatorships such as Venezuela and Cuba.”Bolsonaro’s politician son, Eduardo, tweeted: “The noose is tightening around Nicolás Maduro.”David Smilde, a Venezuela expert from the Washington Office on Latin America advocacy group, said there was a growing sense that with the end of Maduro’s first term and growing regional pressure the crisis was entering a new phase: “But nobody really knows just exactly what it amounts to.“It’s one thing to say: ‘You’re illegitimate’. But how much does that mean in the end? It doesn’t look like any of the Lima Group members or the United States are going to close up their embassies or break off diplomatic relations,” he said.“They want Venezuela to return to democracy in some way … [and to stop] the mass exodus of Venezuelans … but I don’t think they really have much of an idea how to do that.”Maduro and his inner circle would be fretting over their increasing isolation “and that’s why you see them reaching out to the Russians and the Chinese continually”, Smilde said. But any international effort to engineer a peaceful transition would founder unless Venezuela’s fractured opposition united.“Until that happens, the government can kind of do whatever it wants – even a weak government can consolidate if it has no opposition.” Topics Venezuela Americas Nicolás Maduro features

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela’s leftist leader Nicolas Maduro won a new six-year term on Sunday, but his main rivals disavowed the election alleging massive irregularities in a process critics decried as a farce propping up a dictatorship. Victory for the 55-year-old former bus driver, who replaced Hugo Chavez after his death from cancer in 2013, may trigger a new round of western sanctions against the socialist government as it grapples with a ruinous economic crisis. U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is threatening moves against Venezuela’s already reeling oil sector. Venezuela’s election board, run by Maduro loyalists, said he took 5.8 million votes, versus 1.8 million for his closest challenger Henri Falcon, a former governor who broke with an opposition boycott to stand. “They underestimated me,” Maduro told cheering supporters on a stage outside Miraflores presidential palace in downtown Caracas as fireworks sounded and confetti fell on the crowd. Turnout at the election was just 46.1 percent, the election board said, way down from the 80 percent registered at the last presidential vote in 2013. The opposition said that figure was inflated, putting participation at nearer 30 percent. An electoral board source told Reuters 32.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots by 6 p.m. (2200 GMT) as most polls shut. “The process undoubtedly lacks legitimacy and as such we do not recognize it,” said Falcon, a 56-year-old former state governor, looking downcast. Maduro had welcomed Falcon’s candidacy, which gave some legitimacy to a process critics at home and around the world had condemned in advance as the “coronation” of a dictator. Related CoverageLima group says does not recognize Venezuela's electionFactbox: Venezuela's presidential election candidatesFalcon’s quick rejection of Sunday’s election, and call for a new vote, was therefore a blow to the government’s strategy. Falcon, a former member of the Socialist Party who went over to the opposition in 2010, said he was outraged at the government’s placing of nearly 13,000 pro-government stands called “red spots” close to polling stations nationwide. Mainly poor Venezuelans were asked to scan state-issued “fatherland cards” at red tents after voting in hope of receiving a “prize” promised by Maduro, which opponents said was akin to vote-buying. The “fatherland cards” are required to receive benefits including food boxes and money transfers. A third presidential candidate, evangelical pastor Javier Bertucci, followed Falcon in slamming irregularities during Sunday’s vote and calling for a new election. Despite his unpopularity over a national economic meltdown, Maduro benefited on Sunday not just from the opposition boycott but also from a ban on his two most popular rivals and the liberal use of state resources in his campaign. His tally, however, fell short of the 10 million votes he had said throughout the campaign he wanted to win. Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro is surrounded by supporters as he speaks during a gathering after the results of the election were released, outside of the Miraflores Palace in Caracas, Venezuela, May 20, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia RawlinsMaduro, the self-described “son” of Chavez, says he is battling an “imperialist” plot to crush socialism and take over Venezuela’s oil. Opponents say he has destroyed a once-wealthy economy and ruthlessly crushed dissent. Attendance appeared thin in many polling stations visited by Reuters reporters, from wealthy east Caracas to the Andean mountains near Colombia. There were lines, however, at poorer government strongholds, where the majority of voters interviewed said they were backing Maduro. “I’m hungry and don’t have a job, but I’m sticking to Maduro,” said Carlos Rincones, 49, in the once-thriving industrial city of Valencia, accusing right-wing business owners of purposefully hiding food and hiking prices. Many Venezuelans are disillusioned and angry over the election: they criticize Maduro for economic hardships and the opposition for its dysfunctional splits. Reeling from a fifth year of recession, falling oil production and U.S. sanctions, Venezuela is seeing growing levels of malnutrition and hyperinflation, and mass emigration. Venezuelan migrants staged small anti-Maduro protests in cities from Madrid to Miami. In the highland city of San Cristobal near Colombia, three cloth dolls representing widely loathed officials - Electoral Council head Tibisay Lucena, Socialist Party No. 2 Diosdado Cabello and Vice President Tareck El Aissami - were hung from a footbridge. But streets were calm, with children playing soccer on one road in San Cristobal blocked off at past elections to accommodate long voter lines. For many Venezuelans, Sunday was a day to look for scant food or stock up on water, which is increasingly running short because of years of underinvestment. “I’m not voting - what’s the point if we already know the result? I prefer to come here to get water rather than waste my time,” said Raul Sanchez, filling a jug from a tap by a busy road in the arid northwestern city of Punto Fijo because his community has not had running water for 26 days. With the election behind him, Maduro may choose to deepen a purge of critics within the ruling “Chavismo” movement. He faces a Herculean task to turn around the moribund economy, with the bolivar currency down 99 percent in the past year and inflation at an annual 14,000 percent, according to the National Assembly. Slideshow (32 Images)(Reuters Venezuela election coverage on Twitter @ReutersVzla) Additional reporting by Anggy Polanco and Brian Ellsworth in San Cristobal; Vivian Sequera, Leon Wietfeld, Pablo Garibian, Girish Gupta and Andrew Cawthorne in Caracas; Mircely Guanipa in Punto Fijo; Tibisay Romero in Valencia; Francisco Aguilar in Barinas; Corina Pons in Barquisimeto; Maria Ramirez in Ciudad Guayana; Isaac Urrutia in Maracaibo; Caroline Stauffer and Hugh Bronstein in Buenos Aires; Writing by Alexandra Ulmer and Andrew Cawthorne; Editing by Michael Perry and Paul TaitOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

No matter how powerful, all technology is neutral.Electricity can be designed to kill (the electric chair) or save lives (a home on the grid in an inhospitable climate). The same is true for artificial intelligence (AI), which is an enabling layer of technology much like electricity.AI systems have already been designed to help or hurt humans. A group at UCSF recently built an algorithm to save lives through improved suicide prevention, while China has deployed facial recognition AI systems to subjugate ethnic minorities and political dissenters. Therefore, it’s impossible to assign valence to AI broadly. It depends entirely on how it’s designed. To date, that’s been careless.AI blossomed with companies like Google and Facebook, which, in order to give away free stuff, had to find other ways for their AI to make money. They did this by selling ads. Advertising has long been in the business of manipulating human emotions. Big data and AI merely allowed this to be done much more effectively and insidiously than before.AI disasters, such as Facebook’s algorithms being co-opted by foreign political actors to influence elections, could and should have been predicted from this careless use of AI. They have highlighted the need for more careful design, including by AI pioneers like Stuart Russell (often called the father of AI), who now advocates that “standard model AI” should be replaced with beneficial AI.Organizations ranging from the World Economic Forum to Stanford to the New York Times are convening groups of experts to develop design principles for beneficial AI. As a contributor to these initiatives, I believe the following principles are key.Make it easy for users to understand data collectionThe user must know data is being collected and what it will be used for. Technologists must ensure informed consent on data. Too many platforms, across a whole host of applications, rely on surreptitious data collection or use data that was collected for other purposes. Initiatives to stop this are cropping up everywhere, as with the Illinois law requiring that video hiring platforms tell people that AI may be used to analyze their video recording and how the resulting data will be used.Data privacy and ownershipUsers must own and control their data. This is counter to the prevailing modus operandi of many tech companies, which have terms of service designed to exploit user data for the benefit of the company. For example, a tool called FaceApp is collecting millions of user photos, without any disclosure of what data is collected and for what purpose. More alarming, the user interface blurs the fact photos leave the user’s local storage. Users must be empowered, not overpowered, by technology. Users should always know what data is collected, for what purpose, and where it’s collected from.Use unbiased training dataAI must use unbiased data. Any biased data used to train algorithms will be multiplied and enhanced by AI’s power. AI developers have a responsibility to examine the data they feed into the algorithms and validate their objectivity to confirm that they do not include any known bias.For example, it’s been well established that data gleaned from résumés is biased against women and minority groups, so let’s use other types of data in hiring algorithms. The San Francisco DA’s office and Stanford created a “blind sentencing” AI tool, which removes ethnic info from data used in criminal-justice sentencing. This is just one example of using AI to eliminate, rather than double down on, bias.Audit algorithmsIt’s not enough to use unbiased data. A math quirk known as Simpson’s paradox shows how unbiased inputs can yield biased results. It is also critical to check your algorithms for bias. Don’t let skeptics misinform you. It is possible to audit an algorithm’s results to test for unequal outcomes across gender, race, age, or any other axis where discrimination could occur. An external AI audit serves the same purpose as safety-testing a vehicle to ensure it passes safety regulations. If the audit fails, the design flaw causing it must be found and removed.Aim for full transparencyWhite-box AI means there is full transparency of the data that goes into the algorithms and the outcomes. You can only audit an algorithm to potentially reconfigure its biased output if it’s white-box. There can be a trade-off between explainability and performance. However, in fields like human resources, criminal sentencing, healthcare, and others, explainability may always win over pure performance because transparency is key when technology impacts people’s lives. If your model isn’t fully transparent, there are open-sourced methods to help partially explain decisions.Use open-source methodsOpen-source methods should be utilized, either by releasing key aspects of the code as open-source or using well-established and peer-tested existing code. The visibility it offers allows for quality assurance. With the case of algorithm auditing, it is essential to understand the process by which companies are auditing (i.e. safety-testing) their algorithms. Initiatives to open-source this auditing technology are already underway.Involve external councils to create guardrailsAn active community of industry leaders and subject-matter experts should be involved in cementing the rules of engagement for building new AI ethically and responsibly. An open discussion should offer a full accounting of the different implications of AI technology as well as specific standards to follow.As history has shown, innovation invites fear and initial failures of usage. However, with the right design and guardrails, innovation can be harnessed for a positive impact on society. And so it is with AI. With careful forethought and deliberate efforts to push back on human bias, AI can be a powerful tool not just to mitigate bias, but to actually remove it in a way that is not possible with humans. Imagine life without electricity: a world of darkness. Let’s not deprive ourselves of the positive impact of ethical AI.Frida Polli, PhD, is the founder and CEO of Pymetrics.

The sell-off in the S&P 500 late last week may have just reflected a short-lived bout of profit-taking after a strong run. Indeed, the index has begun to rise again this week. Nonetheless, we think that it may be dawning on investors that the FOMC won’t be able to shore up the economy very easily.Last autumn’s slump in the S&P 500 was triggered by emerging concerns about the future health of the economy in the US, while demand in the rest of the world was weak. Although the incoming data in the US were generally still upbeat, investors began to worry that the FOMC would soon kill off the recovery if it tightened policy much more. So they sent the Committee, which at the time was still signalling the need for further rises in interest rates, a message not to overdo it: during this period, they all but factored out more hikes. Of course, the message did not fall on deaf ears at the FOMC, which subsequently pledged to be “patient” when it came to making changes to interest rates in the future. Up until last week’s FOMC meeting, investors took the view that this patience would prevent the US economy from slowing by as much as they had feared. So stock prices rebounded, while expected interest rates remained low. After the meeting, though, investors initially became unsettled again, even though expected interest rates fell even further as the FOMC reiterated its patient approach. This coincided with poor PMI data in the US and Europe.

CARACAS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Critics at home and abroad on Monday denounced the re-election of Venezuela’s socialist President Nicolas Maduro as a farce cementing autocracy, while the U.S. government imposed new sanctions on the crisis-stricken oil-producing country. Maduro, the 55-year-old successor to late leftist leader Hugo Chavez, hailed his win in Sunday’s election as a victory against “imperialism.” But his main challengers alleged irregularities and refused to recognize the result. In response to the vote, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order restricting Venezuela’s ability to liquidate state assets and debt in the United States, the latest in a series of sanctions that seeks to choke off financing for the already cash-strapped government. Venezuela’s mainstream opposition had boycotted the election, given that two of its most popular leaders were barred, authorities had banned several political parties, and the election board is run by Maduro loyalists. Maduro won 68 percent of votes - more than three times as many as his main rival Henri Falcon. Turnout was a low 46 percent, significantly down from 80 percent in 2013’s presidential vote. “The revolution is here to stay!” Maduro told cheering supporters outside the presidential palace in Caracas. He has not outlined firm policies, but has promised to prioritize economic recovery after five years of crippling recession that has seen many struggle with chronic shortages of food, medicines and other basic necessities. Maduro’s dwindling but often still fervent supporters, many of whom remember the generous welfare policies of the Chavez years, want to give him another shot. “We believe in the process and we’re giving President Maduro another chance,” said 45-year-old social security worker Maira Garcia, as she celebrated his victory in the poor Caracas hillside neighborhood of 23 de Enero. Venezuela election: tmsnrt.rs/2IWH6ZD Related CoverageVenezuelan opposition claims moral win, lacks strategy to oust MaduroTrump calls on Venezuela's Maduro to 'restore democracy'U.S. Vice President Mike Pence called the election “a sham - neither free nor fair.” In a statement sent from the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump called for Maduro to “restore democracy, hold free and fair elections, release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, and end the repression and economic deprivation of the Venezuelan people.” In recent months, Washington has imposed a series of sanctions on companies and individuals with ties to the Maduro government. Trump’s order on Monday prohibits involvement in the purchase of any debt owed to the Venezuelan government, including accounts receivable, particularly related to oil sold by the OPEC member. The action appears to target in part Venezuelan-owned but U.S.-based oil refiner Citgo [PDVSAC.UL]. “Today’s executive order closes another avenue for corruption that we have observed being used: it denies corrupt Venezuelan officials the ability to improperly value and sell off public assets in return for kickbacks,” a senior administration official told reporters in Washington. Venezuela’s foreign minister, Jorge Arreaza, called the new sanctions illegal, saying they were “madness, barbaric and in absolute contradiction to international law.” While the order applies only to U.S. citizens and residents, the official said the Trump administration had had “fairly pointed discussions” with China and Russia over the issuing of new credit to Venezuela. Maduro has counted on the support of China and Russia, which have provided billions of dollars in funding in recent years. “What these sanctions are seeking to avoid is that countries outside the Western hemisphere come rescue Maduro financially so that he can consolidate an autocracy,” said Venezuelan opposition lawmaker and economist Angel Alvarado. Other countries also hinted at sanctions, with Spain leading European Union criticism of the election. Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro raises a finger as he is surrounded by supporters while speaking during a gathering after the results of the election were released, outside of the Miraflores Palace in Caracas, Venezuela, May 20, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia RawlinsAnd the 14-nation “Lima Group” of countries in the Americas, from Canada to Brazil, said in a stinging statement it did not recognize the vote and would downgrade diplomatic relations. The group deplored Venezuela’s “grave humanitarian situation.” In contrast, Venezuela’s regional leftist allies, such as Cuba and Bolivia, sent congratulations. In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China believed Venezuela could handle its own affairs and the choice of the people should be respected. The Venezuelan government used ample state resources to get voters out on Sunday and public workers were pressured to vote. Falcon called for a new election, complaining about the government placing of nearly 13,000 pro-government stands offering ‘prizes’ close to polling stations nationwide. The main political opposition said its boycott had worked, but the disparate group did not appear to have a plan going forward other than calling for new elections - a non-starter given the pro-Maduro electoral council. Major protests, like those seen last year and in 2014, seem unlikely, given widespread disillusionment and fatigue. Demonstrators did barricade some streets in the southern city of Puerto Ordaz, drawing teargas from the National Guard, witnesses said. Maduro, a former bus driver whose second term in office starts in January, faces a colossal task turning around Venezuela’s moribund economy. The bolivar currency is down well over 99 percent over the past year and annual inflation is at nearly 14,000 percent, according to the opposition-led National Assembly. Venezuela’s multiple creditors are considering accelerating claims on unpaid foreign debt, while oil major ConocoPhillips (COP.N) has been taking aggressive action in recent weeks against PDVSA [PDVSA.UL], part of a claim for compensation over a 2007 nationalization of its assets in Venezuela. Slideshow (7 Images)U.S. crude hit its highest level since 2014 on Monday amid rising concerns that Venezuela’s oil output could fall further following the election and sanctions. Trading of Venezuelan government and PDVSA debt was mixed but volumes remained thin in New York on Monday afternoon, with election results considered a formality and offering little to change investor viewpoints. The benchmark government bond due 2027 VENGLB27=RR was bid up 0.25 points to 29 cents on the dollar while the benchmark PDVSA 2022 recovered about half of its early losses to trade down 0.65 points in price to 26.851 cents on the dollar VE059352415=, according to Thomson Reuters data. Election results: tmsnrt.rs/2IDZsek Reporting by Alexandra Ulmer in Caracas and Roberta Rampton in Washington; Additional reporting by Maria Ramirez in Ciudad Guayana; Andrew Cawthorne, Andreina Aponte, Deisy Buitrago, Vivian Sequera, Girish Gupta and Luc Cohen in Caracas; Felipe Iturrieta in Santiago; Marco Aquino in Lima; Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Lisa Lambert in Washington; Rodrigo Campos, Daniel Bases and Jessica Resnick-Ault in New York; Editing by Girish Gupta, Frances Kerry and Rosalba O'BrienOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

closeVideoRep. Lee Zeldin reacts to Matt Gaetz's ejection from closed-door impeachment hearingNew York Congressman Lee Zeldin, Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questions which rules are governing the House Democrats' 'fly-by-night' impeachment inquiry."They did ask Matt Gaetz to leave but there is one huge outstanding question that we have -- what rule is governing any of this process?" Zeldin asked on "The Story with Martha MacCallum" Monday."We are with this fly-by-night, making it up as we go along process where the American public is kept completely in the dark -- except for what Adam Schiff wants to cherry-pick out to the American public."Zeldin was reacting to Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., getting the boot on Monday when he tried to sit in on the testimony of a former top National Security Council expert on Russia who was appearing on Capitol Hill as part of the inquiry.‘WHERE’S HUNTER?’ TRUMP ASKS, AS BIDEN’S SON PROMISES NOT TO WORK WITH FOREIGN COMPANIES IF FATHER WINS PRESIDENCY IN 2020VideoGaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, attempted to attend the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, but was told that because he was not a member of the House Intelligence Committee he had to leave. The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees are conducting the impeachment inquiry into Trump.Zeldin voiced his frustration with the lack of transparency in the impeachment inquiry. He also called House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., "a liar and a leaker," saying the American people should demand fairness in the process."The American public should be demanding it. The Democrats should be providing Republicans and the president the same exact rights that they would demand if everything was reversed," Zeldin said."But instead they want to have this particular process where they can cherry-pick out information, withhold other key facts while also lying to create a narrative to try to take down a sitting president."

The hitch, from Turkey’s perspective: American forces were with the Kurds, and had expressed commitments to the Kurds; moving against them would have required coming into direct confrontation with the soldiers of a NATO ally. If this helped restrain Erdogan from moving in over the months he was threatening to do it, the calculation changed on Sunday. No more U.S. forces, no more hitch.“Look, Turkey is a large country,” a senior U.S. administration official told reporters Monday as a bipartisan uproar flared, with politicians and commentators across the political spectrum condemning what they called a betrayal of America’s best friends against ISIS. “It’s got a big military … and they’re a NATO ally. So, you know, the United States is not in a position to, and will not be in a position to, fight Turkey over, you know, any actions that it takes with respect to Syria.”This person continued: “The president has made it very clear, you know, there should be no untoward action with respect to the Kurds or anyone else.”What the president would consider “untoward” was unclear, but the kickoff of the Turkish bombardment today stoked panic in Washington as well as northeast Syria. “Pray for our Kurdish allies who have been shamelessly abandoned by the Trump Administration,” tweeted Senator Lindsey Graham, typically a vocal ally of the president. Graham vowed to lead an effort in Congress to make Erdogan “pay a heavy price.”But Erdogan might not care. Turkey endured sanctions for some of the two years in which the country imprisoned the American pastor Andrew Brunson, then released him last year at Trump’s urging. Turkey has also continued to risk sanctions over its purchase of a Russian air-defense system, though none have yet been imposed—and has kept the system, even though the Defense Department has tried to punish Turkey by refusing to deliver next-generation fighter jets.Soner Cagaptay, a Turkey expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me the incursion might be limited, as Turkish forces seek to break up the swath of territory Kurdish forces hold in northeastern Syria, as they did with two previous interventions. He said that today’s attacks dispel a persistent myth among U.S. decision makers that Turkey only threatens to attack the Kurds in Syria and never actually does: Turkey has done so three times as of today. In The Washington Post yesterday, a spokesman for Erdogan articulated Turkey’s long-standing position: “Turkey has no ambition in northeastern Syria except to neutralize a long-standing threat against Turkish citizens and to liberate the local population from the yoke of armed thugs.”A spokesman for the Kurdish forces had reported two civilian deaths as of early Monday afternoon. General Joseph Votel, the former head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East, said at a think-tank event yesterday that it was likely the Kurds would leave the area once it was clear they were outmatched. He said that he was disappointed with the decision to pull back and that it would not have been the military advice he would have given the president. Of his own experience with Kurdish forces, he said, “They protected us every day.”

Inept conservative operatives Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman held another bizarre press conference in Burkman’s driveway on Wednesday, this time to smear Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) with obviously fake allegations of an extramarital affair. And like past efforts to manufacture sexual claims against Trump foes—from Robert Mueller, to Pete Buttigieg, to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)—the Harris charade fell apart quickly. The pair’s bogus accuser—26-year-old Sean Newaldass—told The Daily Beast on Friday that he had no idea the event in which he alleged that he was in a romantic dalliance with the Senate was real. That’s because Newaldass had met Wohl and Burkman by replying to an ad posted on Craigslist seeking a “male actor” for “performance art.” When he showed up at Burkman’s Virginia home and delivered his lines alleging an affair, Newaldass was under the belief that the press conference was actually an audition for a Spike TV show. He said he had no idea that Harris was a politician. Indeed, he assumed she was a fictional person. “I thought I was acting for a role in a movie, like a role in a TV series,” Newaldass said. “I thought everything was staged, I’m thinking everyone is an actor.” Newaldass insists that he believed that everyone at the event, from Wohl and Burkman, to the reporters asking questions, and a heckler dressed as a corncob, were all actors. Wohl promised Newaldass $500 to appear at the event—money that Newaldass said he still has yet to receive.“I’m thinking this is going to be like The Office,” Newaldass said. “The Office has super dry humor.”Newaldass’s allegations are shocking even by Wohl and Burkman’s standards. The duo are known for hamfisted attempts to manufacture smears against political figures and for roping unwitting participants into their schemes. But they have never concocted a fake TV show in order to execute their plans before. As Newaldass realized Wednesday afternoon that the event was real, and that he was being treated as an outright liar on social media, he said he became afraid to leave his home.“To me, it was the most hurt I’ve ever received from anything in the world,” Newaldass said.Asked over Instagram direct message whether he had tricked Newaldass, Wohl responded with only a laughing-crying emoji. Burkman, a lawyer and lobbyist whose membership in the D.C. Bar was recently suspended over unpaid dues, didn’t respond to a request for comment. This isn’t the first time one of Wohl and Burkman’s fake accusers has turned on them. Their Mueller accuser, Carolyne Cass, failed to show up at a much-hyped press conference and later said Wohl and Burkman had made up the claims. College student Hunter Kelly, whose name Burkman and Wohl used to accuse Buttigieg of sexual assault, turned on the pair even faster than Cass, sending out mocking tweets about their press conference announcing his claims as it happened. Their missteps don’t end there. Wohl is set to be arraigned on a felony charge for unlawful sale of securities later this month in California.Newaldass said he first entered Wohl’s orbit by replying to the Craigslist ad, which makes no mention of politics, Burkman and Wohl, or Harris. Shortly after responding, according to Newaldass, he was contacted by Burkman and Wohl. The phone number that Newaldass said Wohl used to contact him is the same as a number Wohl has used in the past to text and make phones call to a reporter at The Daily Beast. On Tuesday night, Wohl and Burkman got Newaldass an Uber to Burkman’s home in Rosslyn, Virginia. Newaldass said he was told the house belonged to Spike TV, a network that no longer exists after parent company Viacom changed the channel’s name to the Paramount Network in 2018. “I was told, ‘This is the audition for a TV show that’s going to be on Spike,’” Newaldass said. “And I can be a personal trainer on the show, right?” Newaldass said Burkman and Wohl showed him the statement he would read on Wednesday , but described it as a “script.” Newaldass found the claims in the statement bizarre, but considered that he had seen similarly strange things in other movies and TV shows.“It’s hard for me to hold my laughs back because I’m like, ‘This is funny,’” Newaldass said. “What kind of comedy is this?” Burkman and Wohl later emailed him the “script,” according to Newaldass, but not without their signature ineptness. Newaldass initially received a statement from the pair making a series of different sexual allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden—apparently because Wohl or Burkman mixed up their smears and attached the wrong file to the email. After he asked Wohl for clarification, they sent the Harris statement instead. Newaldass began to practice what he thought would be his lines.Newaldass arrived at Burkman’s house around noon Wednesday, a few hours before the press conference. He said two other people—a singer and a purported minister who would perform a blessing at the press conference—were just as nervous as he was, preparing their lines as though they were getting ready for a performance. It wasn’t clear to Newaldass whether the other two people were also actors or similarly oblivious to what was actually happening, but the “minister” later told The Daily Dot that he was not actually a reverend and appeared “confused” about the event.As hecklers and a handful of reporters gathered on Burkman’s sidewalk, inside, Burkman and Wohl encouraged Newaldass by talking up his future Hollywood career. Newaldass said Wohl claimed to be a “director,” and both men encouraged him to sign the statement making allegations against Harris—a signature they would later use as proof that he really believed the claims.“They’re encouraging me like, ‘Man, you’re going to be a star, you’re a lead actor,’” Wohl said. Newaldass’s press conference devolved into farce almost as soon as it began, with a mystery man delivering an apparently fake cease-and-desist notice that Burkman claimed was from Harris’ campaign and Wohl threatening to spray hecklers with a garden hose. Newaldass read the statement to the crowd, convinced, he said, that Harris was a fictional character. “I’m completely oblivious to who this person is,” Newaldass told The Daily Beast.While Newaldass was able to read from his statement, he became confused when asked to answer questions from the crowd, since he thought he needed to read lines. In an interview later with a Daily Dot reporter, Burkman and Wohl repeatedly cut in whenever the reporter asked Newaldass a question.Newaldass said he left the event with promises from Burkman and Wohl for future opportunities in Hollywood, and even the prospect of an entire TV series and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. Newaldass began to think about how a role on a hit TV show would enable him to provide for his family financially.“So that’s what really sucked me in, thinking, ‘Man, I can take care of everybody,’” Newaldass said.When he got home afterwards, though, Newaldass said he slowly began to realize he had been tricked. His Instagram page filled up with accusations that he was a liar. Newaldass began to doubt Wohl and Burkman’s claim that they were just filming a show for Spike TV, and he became afraid to go outside.“I was scared out of my mind,” Newaldass said.Newaldass felt that he had embarrassed his family, and worried about what his family and friends would think of him. “The people that actually pay attention to this stuff are really judging me,” Newaldass said. Newaldass insists that he had never heard of Harris before the press conference. And on that front, he isn’t alone—12 percent of respondents in a Morning Consult poll this month said they had never heard of the senator. After researching Harris, Newaldass said he’s now likely to vote for her presidential bid. Newaldass said the ruse especially stings because, like Harris, Newaldass is of mixed Indian and Caribbean ancestry. “That’s what’s hurtful, because I’m hurting my own ethnicity,” Newaldass said.

On the ground in Uganda, our reporters uncovered how Chinese telecom giant Huawei is providing surveillance tools that African governments use to stifle dissent. Video: Clément Bürge. Photo: Sumy Sadurni for The Wall Street Journal By Oct. 11, 2019 1:26 pm ET LONDON—The European Union has identified a series of specific security threats posed by foreign vendors of telecommunications equipment, significantly heightening the bloc’s scrutiny of suppliers like Huawei Technologies Co., according to officials familiar with the matter and a privately circulated risk assessment prepared by European governments. Earlier in the week, the EU released a public report warning that hostile states or state-backed actors posed a security threat to new 5G mobile networks being rolled out around... To Read the Full Story Subscribe Sign In

During much of this time, many city officials appear not to have understood what was happening, Mr. Sandoval-Strausz argues. They were focused on constructing highways, parking garages, new housing developments and indoor malls — suburban-style amenities to lure back white families who had moved away.“Cities spent decades trying to figure out, ‘How do we get those people back,’” he said, “as opposed to asking, ‘Who are these new people?’”And yet, this process is an old one. Urban neighborhoods and jobs have repeatedly been restocked as one group — the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Mexicans — moves in, prospers and moves away, to be replaced by newer arrivals.Democratic candidates for president have nodded to this rationale for immigration, but it’s likely to become more prominent as the general election approaches.“The only reason that South Bend is growing right now, after years of shrinking, is immigration,” Pete Buttigieg, mayor of the Indiana city, said in the third presidential debate. He has proposed “community renewal visas” to steer immigrants to places that need them most.This cycle of renewal works, Mr. Vigdor suggested, not only because immigrants are willing to do jobs Americans may not want, but also because they’re willing to accept living standards Americans won’t, in a tenement apartment or a run-down neighborhood, or in a city that has been emptying out.If the recent immigrants Mr. Sandoval-Strausz describes move up and out, too, and there isn’t a next wave to replace them, cities much larger and more prosperous than South Bend would have reason to worry.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge in New York on Friday temporarily blocked a Trump administration rule that would deny residency to aspiring immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance, calling it “repugnant to the American Dream.” FILE PHOTO: Migrant families from Honduras turn themselves to U.S. Border Patrol to seek asylum following an illegal crossing of the Rio Grande in Hidalgo, Texas, U.S., August 23, 2019. REUTERS/Loren Elliott/File PhotoThe rule, finalized in August, vastly expanded who could be considered a possible “public charge,” applying to anyone who might in the future need temporary government help such as food stamps, Medicaid or housing aid. Previously it applied to immigrants who would be primarily dependent on the government. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule, if ultimately allowed to take effect, could be the most drastic of the Trump administration’s hardline anti-immigration policies, experts have said. Pushed by Trump’s leading aide on immigration, Stephen Miller, the rule was due to go into effect on Tuesday. But Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York blocked the rule nationwide, finding that the government failed to provide “any reasonable explanation” for why the definition of public charge needed to be changed. It will now be on hold while the underlying legal challenges proceed. The suit was brought by the state of New York, one of nine legal challenges to the public charge rule. Other U.S. judges issued similar injunctions elsewhere on Friday, including the Eastern District of Washington and the Northern District of California. In California, U.S. Judge Phyllis Hamilton found “the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits, for numerous reasons.” In New York, Judge Daniels called the rule a “policy of exclusion in search of a justification.” “It is repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility,” Daniels wrote. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration, with Miller in a leading role, has enacted a series of measures attempting to curtail immigration, only to be blocked by court injunctions until the underlying lawsuits can be heard. Trump lost another ruling on Friday when a U.S. judge in Texas blocked emergency funding for construction of a southern border wall. Judge David Briones of the Western District of Texas granted an injunction against border wall funding beyond that appropriated by Congress. The County of El Paso, Texas, and the Border Network for Human Rights had sued to stop Trump when he announced he would divert military and drug interdiction funds toward construction of the wall. The judge’s order was not final as he asked the parties to submit further filings to be considered over the next 15 days. Miller, speaking before the border wall ruling, criticized the courts, calling their rulings “dangerous.” “The situation in the federal judiciary with respect to these nationwide injunctions, which have proliferated to an unprecedented degree, is intolerable. And it impedes democracy from functioning,” Miller said. The public charge rule laid out factors immigration officers should weigh, including household income and English proficiency. Immigrant advocates said this would disproportionately affect people from Latin American, African and Asian countries. The judge called the inclusion of English proficiency as a predictor of self-sufficiency “simply offensive.” “Judge Daniels understands that to Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, the cruelty of their ‘public charge’ rule is the point,” said Heidi Hess, co-director of CREDO Action, a network of progressive activists. Most visa holders and unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for public benefits, but immigrant advocates, medical professionals and state officials have argued the rule could deter them from seeking benefits even for children who are U.S. citizens. An estimated 15% to 35% of California families eligible for social welfare will withdraw from programs out of fear of the immigration consequences, according to the California Immigrant Policy Center, an immigrant-rights organization. On Thursday, the State Department revealed its own rule on ineligibility for visa applicants, to bring its standards in line with the DHS rule. It was unclear whether the State Department’s rule will take effect. Reporting by Kristina Cooke in Los Angles and Daniel Trotta and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Cynthia Osterman, David Gregorio and Sandra MalerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

California's top utility regulator blasted Pacific Gas and Electric on Monday for what she called "failures in execution" during the largest planned power outage in state history to avoid wildfires that she said, "created an unacceptable situation that should never be repeated." The agency ordered a series of corrective actions, including a goal of restoring power within 12 hours, not the utility's current 48-hour goal. "The scope, scale, complexity, and overall impact to people's lives, businesses, and the economy of this action cannot be understated," California Public Utilities Commission President Marybel Batjer wrote in a letter to PG&E CEO Bill Johnson. PG&E last week took the unprecedented step of cutting power to more than 700,000 customers, affecting an estimated 2.1 million Californians. The company said it did it because of dangerous wind forecasts but acknowledged that its execution was poor. Its website frequently crashed, and many people said they did not receive enough warning that the power was going out. "We were not adequately prepared," Johnson said at a press conference last week. PG&E said in a statement Monday that employees found more than 100 spots where parts of its systems were damaged during the strong winds, including downed power lines and places where trees had hit the lines. Repairs were either completed or underway at those sites. "It is possible that any one of these instances could have been a potential source of ignition" for a wildfire if the outage hadn't taken effect, the statement said. However, the utility didn't specifically comment on the regulatory sanctions. In addition to restoring power faster, the PUC said the utility must work harder to avoid such large-scale outages, develop better ways to communicate with the public and local officials, get a better system for distributing outage maps and work with emergency personnel to ensure PG&E staff are sufficiently trained. She ordered the utility to perform an audit of its performance during the outages that began Wednesday, saying the utility clearly did not adopt many of the recommendations state officials have made since utilities was granted the authority to begin pre-emptive power shutoffs last year. The review is due by Thursday, and she ordered several PG&E executives to appear at an emergency PUC hearing Friday. Gov. Gavin Newsom has also criticized PG&E for its performance during the outage, blaming what he called decades of mismanagement, underinvestment and lousy communication with the public. On Monday the Democratic governor urged the utility to compensate affected customers with a bill credit or rebate worth $100 for residential customers or $250 for small businesses. Newsom said the shutoffs affected too many customers for too long, and it is clear PG&E implemented them "with astounding neglect and lack of preparation." Johnson, the PG&E CEO, responded in writing to Newsom's letter Monday, noting that no fires occurred during the power shut-off. He said he welcomes the PUC review. "We know there are areas where we fell short of our commitment to serving our customers during this unprecedented event, both in our operations and in our customer communications, and we look forward to learning from these agencies how we can improve," he wrote. Batjer's letter also said that PG&E's service territory, design of its transmission lines and distribution network and "lack of granularity of its forecasting ability" mean it can't do pre-emptive power shut-offs as strategically as some other utilities, but she said it must work harder to reduce the number of customers affected by future outages. In a separate filing with the PUC on Monday, Mendocino, Napa and Sonoma counties and the city of Santa Rosa complained about PG&E's communications with local governments and emergency management agencies ahead of planned outages. For instance, attorneys wrote, the weather forecasting website that it uses to communicate with local agencies and emergency services is inadequate and not aligned with commonly used public emergency standards. "It appears never to have occurred to the utility to confirm with its local public safety partners that the tool would meet their needs, nor did PG&E show the website to the local governments who had long been asking for situational awareness information before launching the website publicly," attorneys wrote.

The Trump Ukraine scandal — about to enter its fourth week — saw a number of outstanding if relatively minor questions answered over the weekend, all while President Trump worked to further define his strategy to counter Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against him. The central question around Trump’s interactions with Ukraine is not whether he pushed that country to investigate potential presidential rival former Vice President Joe Biden, but whether there was quid pro quo in the president’s requests to have Biden investigated. In a Saturday preview of his upcoming congressional testimony, a representative for US ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland indicated the ambassador will tell Congress the answer to the question of whether there was quid pro quo is yes — but not the one you’re thinking of. Sondland will reportedly testify that in exchange for Ukraine’s vow to investigate corruption, the administration was promising a coveted White House audience, not the release of military aid. He’s also said, however, he did not connect administration calls for new corruption investigations and Joe Biden at the time.Trump himself intensified his attacks on Democrats’ inquiry, calling it “bullshit” at a Friday night rally — only to shift his strategy on Monday. Thus far, he’s been attacking the inquiry and directing government officials not to cooperate with Democrats’ requests for information. But on Monday, he called on the whistleblower who alerted Congress about his interactions with Ukraine to testify, seeming to argue that the man’s testimony would absolve him of all allegations of wrongdoing — although the whistleblower’s account is already corroborated by information the White House has released. And the man who set off Trump’s desire for a Biden investigation — the former vice president’s son, Hunter Biden — worked to neutralize Republican questions and conspiracy theories that he improperly benefitted from his father’s office by promising to step down from the board of a foreign company. The US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, is expected to testify before Congress Thursday about his knowledge of a campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. In particular, he will likely be asked about allegations the president withheld congressionally approved military aid Ukraine needed to continue its fight against Russian aggressors in the hope of pressuring Ukrainian leaders to launch that investigation.As the US ambassador to the European Union, Sondland wouldn’t seem a likely candidate to be involved with Ukraine, given that nation is not in the EU. However, the ambassador told a Ukrainian news outlet UATV early this year that he had inserted himself into US-Ukraine relations: “We have what are called the three amigos. And the three amigos are Secretary [Rick] Perry, again, Ambassador Volker, and myself. And we’ve been tasked with sort of overseeing the Ukraine-US relationship.” He is of particular interest to those directing the impeachment inquiry because of his appearance in text messages Volker gave to lawmakers during his congressional testimony. In those messages, which were among Volker, Sondland, and the current top US diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor, Sondland seems to work to shield the president from allegations of wrongdoing, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop has written: One State diplomat, Bill Taylor, twice raised concerns that this was connected to Trump’s demands for investigations and with US politics. And, twice, Ambassador Gordon Sondland responded by urging him to talk on the phone rather than by text message. “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Taylor wrote on September 1. “Call me,” Sondland answered. Eight days later, Taylor wrote: “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Sondland responded by denying that this was the case — and urging him not to text about the matter anymore. Specifically, Sondland responded to Taylor’s concerns about the security assistance delay by texting (after a four-and-a-half hour pause): Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or [Mike Pompeo] a call to discuss them directly.The New York Times has reported Sondland crafted that text, a far more formal message than the others Congress has released, after consulting with Trump himself. Trump has been using that text both to defend himself and to shield Sondland from any questions about potential misconduct on the ambassador’s part.Saturday, the Washington Post reported Sondland will tell lawmakers that the content of that text was indeed given to him by Trump during a phone call and that he texted it to his colleagues without stopping to verify the message’s accuracy. “It’s only true that the president said it, not that it was the truth,” Sondland’s representative told the Post’s Aaron C. Davis and John Hudson.Sondland is also expected to tell lawmakers that he “believed Trump at the time and on that basis passed along assurances,” and that more than the question of military aid, he was focused on getting Ukrainian leaders to agree to release a statement announcing they planned to launch new corruption investigations, including into an company on which Joe Biden’s son served as a board member. In exchange, the Ukrainian president would be invited to the White House.This, Sondland is expected to say, “was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt one,” his representative said.Donald Trump has taken an active role in combating the growing impeachment inquiry he faces. He has lashed out against key figures in that investigation on Twitter and in press conferences, and has worked to undermine the public’s confidence in the whistleblower himself. In fact, Trump himself reportedly helped craft a letter his administration sent Congress last week promising it would not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. As the Daily Beast’s Asawin Suebsaeng and Sam Stein reported Saturday: “Trump enthusiastically suggested adding various jabs at Democratic lawmakers and would request that their ‘unfair’ treatment of him be incorporated into the letter.”While he continued that approach throughout most of the weekend — for instance, telling an audience in Louisiana that Democratic Party leader and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “hates the country” and that Democrats are “pursuing an illegal, invalid, and unconstitutional bullshit impeachment” because “they know they can’t win on election day” — the president pivoted Monday and began to argue that Democrats aren’t being thorough enough in their impeachment inquiry.After weeks of attacking the whistleblower whose complaint launched an impeachment inquiry, President Donald Trump is now calling on him to testify before Congress. Adam Schiff now doesn’t seem to want the Whistleblower to testify. NO! Must testify to explain why he got my Ukraine conversation sooo wrong, not even close. Did Schiff tell him to do that? We must determine the Whistleblower’s identity to determine WHY this was done to the USA..— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2019 The president’s call comes in the wake of comments by House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, who told CBS’ Face the Nation House Democrats are reconsidering their efforts to bring the whistleblower to testify before them.Schiff said the Democrats’ hesitation is due to the president himself: He has repeatedly threatened the whistleblower, who remains anonymous, and the chairman said lawmakers are concerned for the whistleblower’s safety.“Before the president started threatening the whistleblower ... we were interested in having the whistleblower come forward,” Schiff said. “Our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected.”Democratic lawmakers had hoped to interview the whistleblower in a secure location in order to learn more about the wrongdoing he alleged in his complaint, namely that Trump attempted to trade congressionally approved military aid for a Ukrainian investigation into a potential presidential rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and that the White House attempted to bury records of a call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to start that investigation.However, Schiff said that evidence related to that call released by the White House, particularly a memo summarizing its contents, and the fact the whistleblower compiled his complaint after speaking to people with firsthand knowledge of the call, make the whistleblower’s testimony less critical than it once was.“Given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call,” Schiff said.Though the whistleblower’s account is already corroborated by the White House’s own records, there are still a bevy of other questions Democrats want answered. A number of witnesses will appear before Congress this week, including Fiona Hill, former White House adviser on Russia, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary for the State Department’s European and Eurasian Bureau.Sunday, the House Intelligence Committee’s Rep. Jim Himes told ABC’s This Week redacted transcripts of these testimonies — and those Congress has already completed — will eventually be made available to the public. The Ukraine scandal began because Donald Trump was convinced that Joe Biden used the power of the vice presidency to shield his son, Hunter, from a criminal investigation. There is no evidence to support this, and on the campaign trail Biden has been vehement in his rebuttals to the president’s allegations. Hunter Biden himself, however, has stayed out of the affair, even when Trump began to claim that he used his father not just in his business dealings in Ukraine but in China to make a large business deal that ended with him on the board of a Chinese private equity firm.Sunday, that changed, as Anya van Wagtendonk explained for Vox: Sunday, through his lawyer George Mesires, the younger Biden seemed to acknowledge his business dealings had placed heightened scrutiny on his father, while also defending his actions. In a statement, Mesires also explained how Hunter Biden planned to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest going forward. First, the younger Biden pledged to cease all work with any foreign-owned companies in the event that his father is elected president in 2020, Mesires wrote. And ahead of that eventuality, Hunter Biden has said he will step down from the board of BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company, a private equity company backed by Chinese state-owned companies. ... To avoid questions of whether his work creates a conflict of interest for his father, the statement says Biden plans to resign from the BHR board by the end of this month; it does not specify whether he will give up his stake in the firm, however. The week begins with a few more questions answered. Following Sondland’s canceled testimony, it was unclear to what degree the White House would be able to stop witnesses from speaking to Congress; his upcoming appearance and expected remarks suggest the administration will be able to do little to stop testimonies and that at least one official sees some evidence of quid pro quo. The answer to the question of who is directing the administration’s response to the inquiry seems to be that it is Trump himself; he has weighed in on legal matters and is certainly setting the tone for the official counterpoints. We already knew that Hunter Biden didn’t seem to have done the things Trump accuses him of, but the weekend saw him make his case. Despite all this, there were few hints to the answer to the largest question of all: Will Trump be impeached? The weeks to come will tell.

A New York federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing a rule next week that would have targeted lower-income immigrants as part of an effort to curb legal immigration. Interested in Immigration? Add Immigration as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Immigration news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Immigration Add Interest "This rule would have had devastating impacts on New Yorkers and our nation, and today's decision is a critical step in our efforts to uphold the rule of law," New York Attorney General James said on Twitter, after the judge's decision. The rule is part of President Donald Trump's broad push to favor skilled and wealthy immigrants over others. Roughly 380,000 more applicants seeking legal immigration status would have been reviewed under the new rule, according to the government's own analysis. Hundreds of thousands more could have been affected if they avoided public benefits because they feared it would disqualify them from obtaining legal status, according to immigration advocates.(MORE: Trump administration underestimating impact of new immigration rule, advocates say) The new regulation would take an expanded look at public services, to include Medicaid and food stamps, that would be used to test whether an immigrant would required taxpayer-funded assistance.(MORE: Immigrants receiving federal assistance target of new Trump rule) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services took a step forward on Wednesday, releasing "self-sufficiency" forms to evaluate prospective immigrants' income, debt and education levels. Multiple lawsuits from states and from immigrants nationwide were in progress when Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York made his ruling on Friday. With further judicial review expected, the Trump administration official in charge of implementing the new policy doesn't appear to be backing down. "Long-standing federal law requires aliens to rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, sponsors and private organizations in their communities to succeed," USCIS acting Director Ken Cuccinelli said Friday. "Through faithful execution of the law, we will ensure immigrants are able to successfully support themselves as they seek opportunity here."

closeVideoMatt Gaetz reacts to getting removed from Schiff hearingMatt Gaetz reacts to getting removed from Schiff hearingHouse Judiciary Committee Member Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., ripped Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for having him removed Monday from a Trump impeachment inquiry hearing.Gaetz told "Hannity" his removal was proof that Democrats cannot run a fair inquiry process, as Republicans had in the case of former President Bill Clinton."This is proof that Democrats can't win a fair election, they can't win a fair debate and they absolutely cannot run a fair impeachment inquiry because they're stacking the deck."REPUBLICAN REP. MATT GAETZ KICKED OUT OF IMPEACHMENT HEARINGVideoGaetz called the process thus far "bizarre," adding that his own committee's chairman, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., effectively commenced the impeachment inquiry last month -- and now he has been removed from a related hearing.The Florida Republican claimed Democrats like Schiff are doing everything they can to limit GOP access to witnesses and evidence, and not allowing the minority party to issue subpoenas."If Republicans had a witness list it would be Adam Schiff who would be a fact witness because of the collusion that he and his staff were engaged in with the whistleblower that they then lied about," he claimed."Even Republicans didn't treat Bill Clinton this bad."He said that in the case of Clinton's 1998 impeachment proceedings, Democrats were allowed to issue subpoenas and Clinton counsel were allowed more access to the process than President Trump's attorneys have had.Gaetz told Hannity he would continue to push for the "facts" of the case to come out, characterizing Schiff's conduct as worthy of a "kangaroo court."Earlier Monday, Gaetz attempted to attend the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, but was told that because he was not a member of the House Intelligence Committee that he had to leave. The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees are conducting the impeachment inquiry into Trump.A frustrated Gaetz aired his disappointment to reporters after being told he was not allowed to sit in on the hearing, venting his anger over what he says are “selective leaks.”Fox News' Andrew O'Reilly contributed to this report.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in a separate appeal brief filed on Friday, said “the president’s claim of absolute immunity is meritorious.” They argued that the framers of the Constitution had recognized the need for a strong chief executive and created a process for investigating and removing him in a manner that would “embody the will of the people” — a clear reference to impeachment.“A lone county prosecutor cannot circumvent this arrangement,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers said. “That the Constitution empowers thousands of state and local prosecutors to embroil the president in criminal proceedings is unimaginable.”Mr. Vance’s office has been examining whether any New York State laws were broken when Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, reimbursed the president’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments he made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who had said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. He has denied the relationship. The current dispute began after Mr. Vance’s office subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, seeking his personal and corporate tax returns dating to 2011.Mr. Trump sued in Federal District Court in Manhattan, seeking to block the subpoena. His lawyers argued that enforcement of the subpoena was a politically motivated action by Mr. Vance’s office and that its enforcement would cause the president irreparable harm.“Criminal investigations impose severe burdens on the president and distract him from his constitutional duties,” the president’s lawyers wrote at the time.