Back in 2013, the world’s biggest bitcoin exchange handled over 70% of all transactions in the cryptocurrency. The exchange was called Mt. Gox, and the future looked bright for the company.But in February 2014, Mt. Gox suspended trading, closed its website, and filed for bankruptcy, saying that some 850,000 bitcoins had disappeared and had probably been stolen. Since then, the company has been mired in legal proceedings brought by creditors hoping to retrieve their funds. Exactly what went wrong at Mt. Gox has never been clear. Rumors abound that the exchange was riddled with accounts that attempted to manipulate the price of bitcoins. But evidence of this activity has been hard to gather.Today, that looks set to change thanks to the work of Weili Chen and colleagues at Sun Yat-sen University in China, who say they’ve uncovered evidence of serious market manipulation in the run-up to the exchange’s collapse in 2014. The discovery, they say, suggests that the cryptocurrency market desperately needs stronger oversight to prevent future manipulation and to reassure potential investors.The team’s method is based on the network of transactions that took place at the exchange between April 2011 and November 2013. This data was mysteriously leaked online in 2014 and provides far more detail than is available from the blockchain record. It has been studied by various groups, but Chen and co are the first to analyze the network properties in this way.To begin with, the team looked at each transaction to see whether the trade took place using roughly the same price that bitcoins were changing hands for more broadly. To their surprise, a significant number of trades took place at rates that were far higher or far lower than the reference price.On August 30, 2013, for example, the going rate for bitcoins in general was between $129 and $143. But on the same day, Chen and co found one transaction in the Mt. Gox data in which a single bitcoin sold for $49,000, and another which sold for just $0.81. Indeed, the team counted up all the trades in which the price was more than 50% higher or lower than the reference price and found almost 200,000 of them. That’s about 2.8% of the total number of transactions.The sheer number of these transaction suggests they have a specific purpose. Chen and co say the most likely purposes are providing liquidity and boosting the volume of trading. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how this kind of activity might influence the bitcoin price too.“Price manipulation is also a likely purpose,” say Chen and co. “We find that the abnormal transactions are greatly correlated with the Bitcoin exchange price.”The researchers go further by studying the network that is formed when each user is a node and a transaction between them creates an edge. They then looked at pattern of trades between the 10,000 users who had been involved with abnormally high transactions, the 6,000 involved in low-priced transactions, and a group of 9,000 who were never been involved in an abnormal transaction.The network analysis reveals some eyebrow-raising trends. For a start, the network of abnormal accounts is much more tightly clustered than the network for normal accounts. “One possible reason is that these accounts are controlled by one organization,” say Chen and co.The team also looked at the transactions and accounts that had the greatest influence on the price. Abnormal accounts turn out to be much more highly correlated with that price than normal accounts.These accounts also display some highly suspicious patterns of trade. For example, on February 7, 2013, account 231 made 749 transactions with itself. This makes no sense for an ordinary trader, but Chen and co have their own theory to explain it. “A reasonable explanation for the self-loop pattern is that the account may belong to the exchange and may be used to increase daily transaction volume or price manipulation,” they say.Another suspicious pattern is a large number of trades from one account to another or between two accounts. For example, on April 14, 2103, account 231 bought and sold with another single account more than 150 times.All this is highly suspicious. “These findings convinced us that there are many market manipulation behaviours in the exchange,” say Chen and co. This analysis raises important questions for bitcoin traders and investors. In particular, they will want to know whether this kind of manipulation is still ongoing, and how it can be prevented.Regulation could help but is not yet in place. Cryptocurrencies are not officially recognized as money by most governments. If they ever are, a whole new raft of financial regulation will apply that should make this kind of manipulation much harder. But until then, this kind of trading is likely to remain a Wild West.Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1902.01941 : Market Manipulation of Bitcoin: Evidence from Mining the Mt. Gox Transaction Network

Once the samples were in, the team focused on 10 important genes. Immediately they saw that the eels clustered into three distinct groups, with very little genetic variation within each one, but substantial genetic differences between them. In one key gene, for example, the three species differ by 6 to 10 percent of their DNA, but individuals within each species differ by 0.3 percent at most.Looking closely, the team realized that there are physical differences among these three species—not in obvious features such as size or color, but in subtler ones, like the flatness of their heads, or the number of pressure-sensitive pores on their flanks. With experience, de Santana can now tell the three species apart by eye.In the wild, it’s even easier: The three eels live in different habitats, which might explain why they’re distinct. About 7 million years ago, some ancestral electric eel split into two populations. Vari’s eel lives in lowland floodplains, whose waters are usually murky, muddy, and oxygen-deprived. The two others live in highland rivers, where water is fast-flowing, well oxygenated, and clear. Though they share the same environment, their ranges don’t overlap: Linnaeus’s eel is restricted to northern Amazonia, while Volta’s eel lives in the south.What separated them? Most likely, the Amazon River itself. Around 9 million years ago, after eons of flowing westward, the mighty river started reversing its course. Its modern eastward flow became entrenched around 2.5 million years ago—exactly when Volta’s and Linnaeus’s eel split into distinct species.These different habitats have likely influenced the animals’ use of electricity. Clear water contains fewer dissolved minerals than muddy water, and is worse at conducting current. So to stun their prey, Volta’s and Linnaeus’s eels either need to get closer than Vari’s eel does or release stronger shocks. Volta’s eel certainly does the latter: De Santana’s team found that it can discharge up to 860 volts. That’s far higher than the 650 volts commonly cited for electric eels, and beyond the abilities of any other electric fish.The three species might also behave differently. It’s commonly said that electric eels are solitary hunters that use electricity to locate prey in murky water, but de Santana’s team has evidence that the two clear-water species live in groups and hunt collectively.These discoveries, made largely in Brazil and by Brazilian scientists, come at a difficult time for the nation’s researchers. The National Museum in Rio de Janeiro—the largest natural-history museum in Latin America—was gutted by a fire last year, destroying millions of priceless specimens in a preventable tragedy caused by inadequate funding.The electric eels’ wild habitat is also on fire. About 40,000 blazes have swept through the Brazilian Amazon this year—an 80 percent rise from last year. Most of these were deliberately ignited to make way for agriculture by burning out forested lands, and the indigenous communities living there. That arson has been tacitly encouraged by Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, who promised to undermine protections for the Amazon, open it up for economic development, and wrest control of land from indigenous groups. “It’s a really bad situation,” says de Santana, who is Brazilian himself. “I go to the Amazon twice a year. From what I’ve seen, I’d say that in 50 years’ time, we’ll only have fragments of what we have today.”The electric eels should serve as reminders of what could be lost as the Amazon shrivels and smolders. “They’re eye-catching animals that have been known for 250 years, and that live in one of the Earth’s biodiversity hot spots,” says de Santana. “If you can find new species like that, what else could you find there?” Ed Yongis a staff writer atThe Atlantic, where he covers science. Twitter Email

Siu filled a vacant spot in the student union shortly before the tumult of the anti-extradition-bill movement spilled into Hong Kong’s streets. Her parents were unaware of her position until they saw her on TV during a press conference in June, prompting an angry text message. “‘Oh my God, my daughter is getting involved as a student leader,’” Siu said, pantomiming their concern. The scolding didn’t work.A day after we spoke, Siu stood on a stage at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A typhoon rolled across Hong Kong that morning, drenching the campus, and lingering gusts of wind whipped up black banners hanging from academic buildings demanding freedom for Hong Kong. Throngs of students made their way up slippery streets toward the rally. Many stopped briefly to take photos of a temporary addition to the campus, a statue of a female protester in goggles, a gas mask, and hard hat charging forward, her right hand clutching an umbrella, her left raising a black flag emblazoned with a revolutionary slogan.Video boards were erected so people at the back of the crowd could see what was happening onstage. Some students watched a live-stream on their mobile phones, sharing headphones. The audio system struggled to project her words, but Siu punctuated the speech with a popular rallying cry: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.” Some 30,000 students chanted the phrase back in response, their voices echoing through the hills around the campus.Students acknowledge that they are in a fortuitous position to protest. They are largely unencumbered by other obligations such as jobs or family responsibilities. Students, and youth more broadly, also have their own “political aura,” says Wong Ching Fung, who served as the president of the Chinese University’s student union from 2015 to 2016. “When they speak about something, citizens and society think they are more pure, more true.”One of the only hitches in the hours-long rally was when a student from mainland China stormed the stage; the student was quickly removed. Relations between students from the mainland and Hong Kong have been tense this summer, with rival camps engaging in heated arguments and ripping down each other’s posters. One particularly telling scene came at City University, where a mainland student was caught toppling a pro-democracy statue before being subdued by campus security.As the event drew to a close, Jacky So, the current president of the Chinese University student union, answered questions from a mob of reporters. So ditched plans for an internship and part-time summer job when protests began to gather momentum. The class boycott is not an education boycott, he explained. There are public lectures and other instructional events on campus for students to attend—“We won’t stop learning,” he told me. Secondary school students have held their own demonstrations, making human chains around their schools in acts of disobedience that have at times been tinged with teenage awkwardness.

A threat by Donald Trump to tax French wines in retaliation to a proposed levy aimed at big US technology companies is “completely moronic”, France’s agriculture minister has said.French plans to place a 3% tax on the “GAFAs” – Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple – drew an angry response from the US president, who warned last week that his administration would announce “substantial reciprocal action”.“They shouldn’t have done this,” Trump told reporters. “I told them, I said, ‘Don’t do it because if you do it, I’m going to tax your wine.’” He added that, despite being teetotal, he had always preferred American wine to French wine.On Tuesday, the French agriculture minister, Didier Guillaume, hit back, telling BFM TV: “It’s absurd, in terms of having a political and economic debate, to say that if you tax the GAFAs, I’ll tax wine. It’s completely moronic.“American wine is not better than French wine,” he added.On Saturday, the French finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, urged the US not to bring trade tariffs into the debate on how to fairly raise levies on digital services.“It’s in our interest to have a fair digital tax,” Le Maire told reporters. “Please do not mix the two issues. The key question now is how we can we get consensus on fair taxation of digital activities.”Le Maire reiterated the assurance by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, that France would lift its national digital tax if there was a deal on a universal tax at the level of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).He added that France wanted leaders of the G7 group of nations to agree on the principle of universal taxation of digital activities at next month’s summit in the coastal resort of Biarritz.Two weeks ago, the French senate approved a 3% levy that will apply to revenue from digital services earned in France by companies with more than €25m (£23m) in French revenue and €750m worldwide.Other EU, including Austria, Britain, Spain and Italy, have also announced plans for their own digital taxes. Topics France Donald Trump Europe Technology sector International trade Global economy US economy news

A Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bus is seen parked outside a federal jail in San Diego, California, U.S. October 19, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake(Reuters) - Migrants separated from their children after they were detained for illegally entering the United States filed a class action lawsuit on Friday, claiming there are “hundreds” of parents in the same situation, and that the Trump administration is violating their due process rights. The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and filed in U.S. District Court in southern California, expands on the claim of a single Congolese asylum seeker filed last week. Ms. L, as she is referred to in the complaint, had been detained in San Diego while her 7-year-old daughter was sent to Chicago four months ago by federal authorities. But on Tuesday, just days after the initial lawsuit was filed, Ms. L was released. The class action seeks to represent all adult parents in immigration custody who have a minor child separated from them without a hearing to prove the parent is unfit to care for them. The Justice Department declined to comment on pending litigation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that it does not currently have a policy of separating families but that it does so at times if a child may be at risk. “There have been numerous intelligence reports and cases where kids have been used and trafficked by unrelated adults in an effort to avoid detention,” Tyler Houlton, a DHS spokesman, said in a statement. “If we are unable to confirm this relationship we must take steps to protect the child.” In the class action complaint, Ms. L is joined by another anonymous lead plaintiff. Ms. C. is a woman from Brazil who crossed the border and told officials she hoped to apply for asylum in the United States. She was prosecuted on a misdemeanor charge of entering the country illegally and served a 25-day sentence in jail, while her 14-year-old son was sent to a facility in Chicago, the lawsuit says. On Sept. 22, she was transferred to immigration detention in Texas and has still not been able to reunite with her son. The administration has floated the idea of separating families at the border in an attempt to deter migration. But Democratic lawmakers have spoken out against that idea and the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a statement that family separation measures “are harsh and counterproductive.” Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Sue Horton, Susan Thomas and Lisa ShumakerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Two fast-moving wildfires that exploded in the hills of Southern California have forced thousands of evacuations, including the entire city of Malibu and a sprawling naval base, as extremely critical fire conditions roar back to life on Sunday. The largest of the two blazes, the Woolsey Fire, grew to 85,500 acres on Sunday after spreading south from Simi Valley in Ventura County to Agoura Hills in Los Angeles County, where the flames jumped the 101 Freeway and continued burning toward the Malibu area. That stretch of the freeway was shut down in both directions on Friday and remained so through the weekend. The fire grew over 10 times in size from Friday morning -- when it was just 8,000 acres -- to Saturday evening. It grew 2.5 times larger in just 24 hours Saturday. Two deaths at a residence in Los Angeles County were blamed on the Woolsey Fire, according to Cal Fire. Despite the growth on Saturday, conditions were expected to worsen over the weekend and into Monday. Extremely critical fire danger exists for the mountains between San Diego and Los Angeles with winds whipping as high as 70 mph. A small number of evacuation orders were lifted in the Simi Valley area late Saturday, but 170,000 residents were evacuated at the fire's height. More than 50,000 homes were evacuated. The massive blaze was still only 15 percent contained Sunday evening, though over 800 firefighting personnel were working around the clock to quell the flames, according to Cal Fire. Late on Friday, President Donald Trump declared a state of emergency for California, freeing up federal resources to supplement local response efforts to combat three major wildfires blazing across the state. The declaration allows the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate disaster relief efforts to help alleviate the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, provide support for emergency measures and free up federal resources.(MORE: Trump's fire tweet infuriates California celebrities; Hollywood strikes back) But on Saturday morning, Trump threatened to pull federal funding for California wildfires if the state didn't "remedy" the situation. Residents in Ventura and Los Angeles counties have evacuated, including a mandatory evacuation for all of Malibu, according to the Ventura County Fire Department. Pepperdine University in Malibu ordered its students and faculty to shelter in place Friday night as the rest of the city was evacuating. The school lifted the shelter-in-place order Saturday morning but closed its offices and canceled all classes and events on its Malibu and Calabasas campuses through Tuesday. "I can't speak to the facts, but at some point there was a determination made for the students to stay in place because at that moment it wasn't safe to evacuate," Chief Daryl Osby of the Los Angeles County Fire Department said. "So we protected the students where they were, and we were successful in that endeavor." Andrew Benton, the president of Pepperdine University, later explained that the school, in cooperation with the fire department, has planned to shelter in place during these situations since 1993, after dangerous brush fires threatened its Malibu campus in 1985. The Woolsey Fire has damaged or destroyed a number of structures, including celebrity homes and a legendary Hollywood film set. Caitlyn Jenner posted an Instagram video on Friday, saying she had evacuated to a safe house but wasn't sure what had become of her residence in the Malibu hills. Lady Gaga, Mark Hammill, Kim Kardashian West and her sister Kourntey Kardashian also reported via social media they they have fled their homes due to the wildfires. Meanwhile, the Woolsey Fire burned down a portion of Paramount Ranch in Agoura Hills known as "Western Town," where hundreds of movies and television shows, including HBO's "Westworld," have been filmed, dating back to the 1920s.(MORE: Kim Kardashian shares images while fleeing massive California wildfire) Authorities have described the blaze as a very dangerous, wind-driven inferno. The Woolsey Fire ignited Thursday afternoon in Simi Valley, northeast of Thousand Oaks, not far from where a mass shooting claimed at least 12 lives late Wednesday night. A smaller blaze, the Hill Fire, ignited around the same time Thursday in the Santa Rosa Valley area of Ventura County, northwest of Thousand Oaks. The fire was burning an area of about 4,500 acres on Saturday, as firefighters increased the containment level to 25 percent. Several areas were under mandatory evacuation orders, including the Naval Base Ventura County's facility in Point Mugu, located near Oxnard, according to the Ventura County Fire Department. Authorities had warned the flames could potentially spread all the way to the Pacific Ocean.(MORE: 5 dead after Northern California wildfire engulfs vehicles, officials say) The governor-elect of California, Gavin Newsom, on Friday issued an emergency proclamation for Ventura and Los Angeles counties due to the Woolsey and Hill fires. Meanwhile, a wildfire has laid waste to entire neighborhoods in Northern California. Several people were found dead Thursday in the torched town of Paradise, which has been almost entirely decimated by the Hill Fire, authorities said. ABC News' Karma Allen, Alexandra Faul, Matthew Fuhrman, Max Golembo, Karine Hafuta, Marilyn Heck, David Herndon and Bonnie McLean contributed to this report.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam said on Tuesday the city’s police force, which has been accused of beating activists and using excessive force during protests, is under extreme pressure and acknowledged it will be a “long road” toward healing rifts. Beijing-backed Lam said it was “quite remarkable” there had not been fatalities during three months of protests, and she hoped dialogue would help resolve the political crisis gripping the Asian financial center. Police cast doubt over allegations that officers beat a man during a protest on Saturday, while Amnesty International called on the government to investigate police use of force against demonstrators. Police Acting Senior Superintendent Vasco Williams told reporters on Monday that footage of the alleged incident appeared to show an “officer kicking a yellow object”, not a man, in an alley. He conceded that the incident needed to be investigated, although he ruled out police “malpractice” and added that the video could have been “doctored”. What started as protests over a now-shelved extradition bill that would have allowed criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial have evolved into broader calls for greater democracy and an independent inquiry into police actions. Demonstrators are frustrated at what they see as Beijing’s tightening grip over the former British colony, which returned to China in 1997 under a “one country, two systems” formula intended to guarantee freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland. China has said it is committed to the arrangement and denies interfering. Related CoverageApple Daily condemns attack on reporter covering Hong Kong protestsWhat's next for Hong Kong's protest movementLam said that, while she supported the police to safeguard the rule of law, “that doesn’t mean that I would condone irregularities or wrong practices done by the police force”. “I know the level of mutual trust is now relatively low in Hong Kong, but we have to make sure that we can continue to operate as a civil society,” she told reporters. Lam was speaking after Amnesty called for an investigation into police actions and urged the Hong Kong government to encourage Beijing to safeguard protesters’ right to peaceful assembly. “Ordering an independent and effective investigation into police actions would be a vital first step,” Joshua Rosenzweig, head of Amnesty’s East Asia regional office, said in a report. “Authorities need to show they are willing to protect human rights in Hong Kong, even if this means pushing back against Beijing’s ‘red line’.” In 2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned in a speech marking the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to Beijing that any attempt to undermine China’s sovereignty was a “red line” that would not be tolerated. The protests have weighed on Hong Kong’s stock exchange. On Tuesday, the Asia-Pacific unit of brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev NV (AB InBev) raised about $5 billion in a Hong Kong IPO, after being priced at the bottom of a marketed range. In July, the company canceled plans for an IPO aiming to raise $9.8 billion. Hong Kong's Chief Executive Carrie Lam attends a news conference in Hong Kong, China September 24, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge SilvaThe wider economy has also been hit. The Hong Kong Trade Development Council said on Monday that it expects Hong Kong’s exports to shrink by 4% this year, in what would mark its worst export performance in a decade. A democratic lawmaker, Roy Kwong, was taken to hospital on Tuesday after being punched and kicked by three men in the Tin Shui Wai district close to the border with mainland China. Fellow Democratic Party lawmaker Lam Cheuk-ting said the assailants had suspected triad, or organized criminal backgrounds, and intended “to send a message to threaten all” pro-democracy lawmakers. Over more than three months, many peaceful protests have degenerated into running battles between black-clad protesters and police, who have responded with tear gas, water cannon, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds and several live rounds fired into the air. Police, who have also been seen beating protesters on the ground with batons, say they have shown restraint in the face of increased violence, including protesters hurling petrol bombs. Lam said she hoped a dialogue session on Thursday evening with 150 members of the public would help bridge the divide, but conceded “it will be a long journey to achieve reconciliation in society.” In a direct challenge to Communist Party rulers in mainland China, some protesters have targeted Beijing’s representative office in Hong Kong, thrown bricks outside the Chinese People’s Liberation Army base and set fire to the Chinese flag. The city is on edge ahead of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic on Oct. 1, with authorities eager to avoid scenes that could embarrass the central government in Beijing. Slideshow (7 Images)Lam said all national events should be respected and held in a safe environment. Guests at a flag-raising ceremony to mark the occasion will be moved indoors so it “can be carried out in a solemn and orderly manner”, the Home Affairs Department told Reuters on Tuesday. Reporting by Anne Marie Roantree, Donny Kwok, James Pomfret, David Kirton, Twinnie Siu and Poppy McPherson in Hong Kong; Editing by Stephen Coates and Alex RichardsonOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong protesters chanting anti-government slogans trapped city leader Carrie Lam in a stadium for hours on Thursday after she held her first “open dialogue” with the people in a bid to end more than three months of often violent unrest. Activists blocked roads and stood their ground despite police warnings, before beginning to disperse. More than four hours after the talks had ended, a convoy carrying Lam and other senior officials left the building under police guard. Inside the British colonial-era Queen Elizabeth Stadium, residents had earlier chastised Lam, accusing her of ignoring the public and exacerbating a crisis that has no end in sight. She had begun by saying her administration bore the heaviest responsibility for resolving the crisis. “The whole storm was caused by the extradition bill initiated by the government,” Lam said. “If we want to walk away from the difficulty and find a way out, the government has to take the biggest responsibility to do so.” Protests over the now-shelved extradition bill that would have allowed criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial have evolved into broader calls for full democracy, in a stark challenge to China’s Communist Party leaders. The demonstrations resumed after the dialogue session was over, with activists blocking roads around the stadium with iron railings and other debris. The unrest followed an event that had been notable for not being the whitewash many predicted, with Lam directly facing off with an often critical and hostile audience, still aggrieved at the havoc they blame on the Beijing-backed leader and her team. Related CoverageHong Kong protesters block roads near stadium where leader Carrie Lam spokeHong Kong leader says biggest responsibility for ending crisis lies with governmentProtesters are angry about what they see as creeping Chinese interference in Hong Kong, which returned to China in 1997 under a “one country, two systems” formula intended to guarantee freedoms that are not enjoyed on the mainland. Outside, large crowds of black-clad protesters chanted: “Hong Kong people, add oil,” a slogan meaning “keep your strength up”, while encircling the sports stadium and blocking exits. Police warned that they would use force but did not intervene. The event saw Lam holding talks with 150 members of the community. Speakers criticizing her for curbing electoral freedoms, ignoring public opinion and refusing to allow an independent inquiry into allegations of police brutality. Several called on Lam to resign, saying she was no longer fit to lead. Lam listened, taking notes, before responding on occasion. She appealed for people to give her government a chance, while emphasizing Hong Kong still had a bright future and a strong rule of law. “I hope you all understand that we still care about Hong Kong society. Our heart still exists,” she said. “We will maintain our care for this society.” A performer carries a chain outside the venues of first community dialogue holding by Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam in Hong Kong, China September 26, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge SilvaShe stressed again, however, that she saw no need at the moment for an independent inquiry, with an existing police complaint mechanism sufficient to meet public concerns. She also reiterated there was no way she could bow to the demand for charges against those arrested for rioting to be dropped. “I am not shirking responsibility, but Hong Kong really needs to calm down,” she said. “We have to stop sudden violence breaking out... Violation of the law will result in consequences we have to bear.” She also conceded limits to what she could do. “There are some things that me and my colleagues cannot influence in society ... but the dialogue will continue.” China says it is committed to the “one country, two systems” arrangement and denies meddling. It has accused foreign governments, including the United States and Britain, of inciting the unrest. City rail services resumed on Thursday after being halted on Wednesday night at Sha Tin station, where protesters vandalized fittings for the second time this week. Rail operator MTR has at times suspended city rail services during the protests, preventing some demonstrators from gathering and thus making it a target of attack, with protesters vandalizing stations and setting fires near some exits. Slideshow (31 Images)When violence has flared, police have responded with tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets. Hong Kong is on edge ahead of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China on Oct. 1, with authorities eager to avoid scenes that could embarrass the central government in Beijing. Activists have planned a whole host of protests on the day. The Asian financial hub also marks the fifth anniversary this weekend of the start of the “Umbrella” protests, a series of pro-democracy demonstrations in 2014 that failed to wrest concessions from Beijing. Reporting by Felix Tam, James Pomfret, Anne Marie Roantree, Angie Teo, Poppy McPherson and Donny Kwok; Writing by Nick Macfie; Editing by Peter Graff and Alex RichardsonOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

In 2006, years before Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her when they were both in high school, the Yale Law Journal published a provocative paper. The paper, “How To Remove a Federal Judge” by law professors Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, lays out a road map for, well, how to remove a federal judge without resorting to the impeachment power. It argues that a provision of the Constitution stating that federal judges and justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” is widely misunderstood. Contrary to the “virtually unquestioned assumption among constitutional law cognoscenti that impeachment is the only means of removing a federal judge,” Prakash and Smith argue that the term “good behavior” is a legal term of art that would have been understood by the founding generation to allow judges to be removed by “judicial process.”Prakash, a professor at the University of Virginia, is a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. Smith, a professor at the University of San Diego, is a frequent contributor to conservative and libertarian publications. So even if the paper did not precede the Kavanaugh hearings by more than a decade, it would be difficult to argue that it was published in order to lay the groundwork for a liberal victory over a conservative Supreme Court justice.The paper, which was published in one of the legal academy’s most prestigious journals but has had little impact on public policy so far, could wind up becoming important if Democrats capture Congress and the White House in the 2020 election.On Saturday, the New York Times published a report bolstering the allegations against Kavanaugh.The Times says that its reporters “found Dr. Ford’s allegations credible during a 10-month investigation” and that “at least seven people” corroborated a second allegation, by Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez, who says that Kavanaugh “pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at” Ramirez without her consent. He has denied both allegations. Christine Blasey Ford swears in at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 27, 2018. Melina Mara-Pool/Getty Images The report also revealed new allegations that Kavanaugh allegedly attended a drunken dorm room party in college “where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student” — although this third story is attributed to an alleged eyewitness and “the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.” The Times report, adapted from the forthcoming book The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, sparked calls for Kavanaugh’s impeachment, including from at least four presidential candidates.But impeachment is a paper tiger. To remove Kavanaugh via impeachment, two-thirds of the senators present for such a vote would need to vote against Kavanaugh. And the Senate is malapportioned in ways that favor Republicans — in the current Senate, Democrats represent about 15 million more people, but Republicans control 53 percent of the seats. Barring a historic political realignment, in other words, there is virtually no chance that there will ever be 67 senators who will vote to remove Kavanaugh. But, if Prakash and Smith are right about the Constitution’s good behavior clause, there won’t necessarily have to be.The thrust of Prakash and Smith’s argument is that an official who is appointed during “good behavior” may keep their office indefinitely, but that an official who misbehaves may be removed through an ordinary court proceeding.Misbehavior, they argue, was understood broadly by English courts and by early Americans. It can include “conviction for such an offense as would make the convicted person unfit to hold a public office,” but also may include much lesser offenses. The two professors cite the eminent 17th-century jurist Sir Edward Coke for the proposition that misbehavior may also include “abuse of office, nonuse of office, and refusal to exercise an office.”For this reason, Prakash and Smith claim that it is a mistake to read the Constitution as preventing a judge from being removed from office except by impeachment. The Constitution, they note, only permits impeachment of civil officers for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But the term “good behavior” was understood to allow an official to be removed for much lesser offenses. Therefore, the Constitution’s invocation of this term suggests that federal judges may also be removed through a process other than impeachment.To prove their claim that the term “good behavior” allows officials to be removed in a judicial proceeding, the professors cite a raft of 17th- and 18th-century English cases that support their argument. They quote early state constitutions suggesting that service during “good behavior” can be concluded by a court proceeding — the 1776 Maryland Constitution, for example, provides that judges “shall hold their commissions during good behaviour, removable only for misbehaviour, on conviction in a Court of law.” The facade of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Robert Alexander/Getty Images They quote future President John Adams, who said in a debate with a contemporary that a judge serving during good behavior may be removed after a “hearing and trial, and an opportunity to defend himself before a fuller board, knowing his accuser and accusation.” And, in what is probably their single most persuasive piece of evidence, they quote a 1790 act of Congress providing that judges convicted of taking bribes ”shall forever be disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States,” even though no impeachment may have occurred.Prakash and Smith conclude by suggesting acts of Congress that would allow judges to be removed without impeachment, including a law automatically removing judges upon their conviction for certain offenses, one creating a separate judicial process to remove judges accused of misconduct by the Justice Department, and another empowering an internal review board whereby federal judges police their own.The two professors’ argument is, to say the least, not universally accepted by scholars. Indeed, in the same year that Prakash and Smith published their Yale Law Journal piece, the Journal also published a response by Northwestern law professor Martin Redish, which takes issue with their definition of good behavior.In his piece, Redish warns of “the extremely problematic effect that [Prakash and Smith’s] proposed interpretation would have on the vital role that federal judicial independence necessarily plays in preserving the foundations of our political and constitutional structure.”But Prakash and Smith also offer a sharp rebuttal to this critique: “Any removal procedure authorized by Congress would have to be conducted by a court with all the traditional judicial safeguards.” Judicial independence, in other words, would be protected by the fact that the judiciary would ultimately decide which judges are removed.Such a process is hardly unheard of in the United States. Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, for example, was twice stripped of his judicial responsibilities by a special court that hears complaints against the state’s judges. Roy Moore gives the Pledge of Allegiance before announcing his plans to run for Senate in Montgomery, Alabama on June 20, 2019. Jessica McGowan/Getty Images A different critique of Prakash and Smith — and one that I personally find persuasive, at least in the abstract — is that stability in the law is important. Whatever English courts may have done in the 17th century, or whatever Congress may have done in 1790, the seemingly unbroken practice of two centuries of American history is that judges may only be removed by impeachment. Does it really make sense to toss out such a settled norm because two clever law professors dug up some centuries-old legal documents?In an 1826 letter, James Madison explained why, as president, he did not veto legislation chartering the Second Bank of the United States after arguing that the first such bank was unconstitutional. The first bank’s acceptance by public officials and by the American people, Madison wrote, constituted “a construction put on the Constitution by the Nation, which having made it had the supreme right to declare its meaning.” A similar logic could be applied to the norm against removing judges without impeachment.But the era when public officials stay their hands simply because longstanding norms advise them to do so appears to have passed. Not too long ago, there was a norm providing that Supreme Court nominees receive confirmation hearings, or that Congress should not use the debt ceiling to extract policy concessions from the president, or that filibusters should be used only rarely.The question for Democrats, in other words, is not whether norms of governance must be obeyed in the United States — clearly they are not. The question is whether Democrats want to tear down one more norm in order to remove a judge they view as uniquely odious.Because the courts would need to acquiesce in any attempt to remove Kavanaugh without impeachment, it’s possible that any effort to do so would fail. Nevertheless, it is also possible to imagine a scenario where the judicial branch would decide that it is better to strip Kavanaugh of his office than to allow him to remain at the apex of the judiciary.Suppose that prosecutors showed that a justice perjured himself at his confirmation hearing — a crime that is, admittedly, very difficult to prove — and he is sentenced to some amount of time in prison. If he can only be removed via the impeachment process, that would mean that he would still be a member of the Supreme Court even as he serves out his sentence.How would basic Supreme Court functions, such as the conferences where all nine justices meet in a room to decide which cases to hear, continue to operate when one of those justices is behind bars? And once the justice gets out, would federal courts really want to endure the spectacle of such a man weighing the fate of other criminal defendants?Congress could, in other words, pass a law similar to the 1790 law referenced in Prakash and Smith’s paper, which disqualifies federal judges who’ve been convicted of certain crimes that call into doubt their integrity as a judge. And if Congress decides to go this route, the two professors’ paper will give the Justice Department the arguments it needs to defend such a law in court.

“Welcome to our village, wee one,” is how Jacinda Ardern announced the birth of her daughter to New Zealand, and the world.The prime minister posted a photograph of her and partner Clarke Gayford cuddling their first child on her Facebook page late on Thursday afternoon (NZ time). “Feeling very lucky to have a healthy baby girl that arrived at 4.45pm weighing 3.31kg (7.3lb). Thank you so much for your best wishes and your kindness. We’re all doing really well thanks to the wonderful team at Auckland City hospital.”Ardern, 37, becomes only the second world leader to give birth while in office, the first being Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto in 1990 – with whom, coincidentally, Ardern’s daughter shares a birthday.News of the birth was met with a flurry of excitement in New Zealand, the culmination of a nationwide “#babywatch” that began with the announcement of Ardern’s pregnancy in January and reached its peak on Sunday, which had been her due date.Morgan Godfrey, a political commentator and writer, remarked on Ardern’s typically down-to-earth approach despite being under the global spotlight during the pregnancy. “Jacinda Ardern arrived at hospital in her own car, with Clarke driving. No crown limo or special ambulance. Her baby was delivered in a public hospital alongside everyone else’s. No private hospital. No extra special attention. New Zealand, remain your understated self.”He added: “Three cheers for the public health system, too.”Guy Williams, a television personality and comedian, spoke for many New Zealanders when he tweeted that it was a “proud day to be a Kiwi”. He added: “Anyone who claims this isn’t a historic moment for our country is dismissing the ingrained prejudice we all still have towards women in the workplace.”Winston Peters, the leader of the populist New Zealand First party and deputy prime minister, is now acting prime minister. He said after Ardern was admitted to hospital: “It’s a happy day and on behalf of the coalition government we wish her and Clarke all the very best.”A host of Ardern’s Labour party colleagues shared their congratulations, as did the leader of the opposition National party, Simon Bridges, who wished the new parents “every happiness” on Twitter.Ardern intends to take six weeks’ maternity leave before returning to work, with Gayford, a television presenter and “first bloke”, remaining at home. Gayford had himself announced that “our little girl has finally arrived” on Twitter, adding that both mother and baby were “healthy and happy”.Helen Clark, the former Labour prime minister and former head of the UN Development Programme, wrote in a Guardian article that “the new arrival in our country’s first family” was significant, not only because Ardern was prime minister, but because she was not married, and Gayford would be the stay-at-home parent.“For young women, the example Ardern is setting is an affirmation that they too can expect to have that choice. For young men, Gayford being the full-time carer of a baby sends a powerful message that they too can exercise that choice,” Clark wrote.Ardern has said there will be little disruption during her time off; she will be in regular contact with Peters and involved in major decisions. She had previously said she planned to have labour induced if her pregnancy ran far beyond the due date.Peters had already taken over some of her duties, including running cabinet meetings, before her last day in parliament earlier this week. But his refusal to repeal a controversial “three strikes” policy, and decision to sue heads of department of his own government, has sparked tension within the coalition. Bridges said on Radio New Zealand earlier this month that the issue had “underlined cracks” in the coalition. “We’ll see the power dynamics of that and who’s really in charge,” he said.Reporters had been on high alert since Sunday, with many camped outside the hospital.The news website Stuff compiled the “perfect playlist” to welcome the infant. Titled “Waiting for Womb Fruit”, the playlist hedged its bets with the opener: Hey Boy Hey Girl by the Chemical Brothers.The news and pop culture website the Spinoff began its own live blog – only in part a meta-commentary on the fervour – on Sunday afternoon with “There is no baby”, promising “further updates as they come to hand”.After four days of minutiae, taking in the quality of hospital canteen scones and an extended reflection on whether babies were born with political bias (concluding that they are in fact “agents of chaos”), it culminated on Thursday with: “6:15pm: A baby!”Hayden Donnell, a co-author of the blog, described it as “groundbreaking” and himself as “very tired”.He said most New Zealanders were supportive of the baby, singling out for exception one media personality who had vocally dismissed the prime minister’s pregnancy as “not a story”.“Obviously I disagree with that because I have been covering the story for four days. It’s a joyous moment for New Zealand, is the main point I want to make.” Topics Jacinda Ardern New Zealand Asia Pacific news

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Brewer AB InBev priced the Hong Kong IPO of its Asia-Pacific unit at the bottom of a marketed range to raise about $5 billion, indicating deals in the pipeline may need subdued valuations to succeed as protests in the city unnerve investors. Anheuser-Busch InBev NV (AB InBev), the world’s largest brewer, relaunched the initial public offering (IPO) this month after cancelling a plan for a bigger IPO of the unit in July citing “several factors, including the prevailing market conditions”. Separately, Topsports International Holdings, the sportswear business of Chinese footwear retailer Belle International, launched on Tuesday a Hong Kong IPO of up to $1.2 billion, as per a marketing term sheet seen by Reuters. The AB InBev and Topsports offerings are among a handful of recent sizeable IPOs seen as tests of investor sentiment following anti-government protests that have roiled Hong Kong for nearly four months and weighed on its stock market. Markets more generally are also on edge amid a trade dispute between the United States and China, as well as slowing global growth. The IPO of Budweiser Brewing Company APAC Ltd is still the second-biggest globally so far this year, trailing only the $8.1 billion flotation of Uber Technologies Inc in May, data from Refinitiv showed. AB InBev, whose portfolio of more than 50 beer brands includes Stella Artois and Corona, said on Tuesday the Budweiser IPO was priced at HK$27 ($3.44) per share, the bottom end of the HK$27 to HK$30 indicative range, confirming what sources had earlier told Reuters. AB InBev’s revived IPO excludes its Australian operations, which it agreed to sell to Japan’s Asahi Group for $11 billion shortly after the previous IPO was shelved. Without Australia, a large but mature market, AB InBev’s Asia-Pacific operations would be more focused on faster growth markets such as China, India and Vietnam, which has made the IPO an easier sell, sources have said. “The company has top-notch assets and without the slow-growing Australian operations the deal has become more attractive than last time,” said one source with knowledge of the Budweiser IPO. “And today’s low end pricing would give the stock more upside potential in the public market.” The IPO pricing comes as Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam said on Tuesday that she hoped peaceful and rational dialogue will help find a way out of the protests gripping the former British colony. At HK$27 per share, Budweiser will have a market value of $45.6 billion, and a forward enterprise value (EV) to expected EBITDA - earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization - valuation of 17 times, according to sources with knowledge of the matter. By comparison, the aborted July float was aiming for a forward EV/EBITDA of up to 18.2 times. The new valuation is cheaper than the 23.5 times forward EV/EBITDA that its rival China Resources Beer Holdings commands. Budweiser said last week it had lined up Singapore sovereign wealth fund GIC to invest $1 billion in the IPO as its cornerstone investor, lending some stability to the IPO. It did not have a cornerstone investor during the July float attempt. A successful completion of the Budweiser IPO, though, could encourage more Hong Kong IPO candidates to firm up their plans. China’s biggest e-commerce company Alibaba Group Holding Ltd delayed last month its up to $15 billion listing in the city amid the growing political unrest there. More IPOs will be a boost for Hong Kong as a listings hub, with the city currently lagging its New York rivals. Companies raised $10.8 billion in new listings in Hong Kong as of mid-September, well short of the $41 billion raised in New York, according to Refinitiv data. The Budweiser IPO included a rare “upsize” option that enabled the Belgium-based brewer to sell up to 36.8% more shares in the offering. That option was partially exercised, it said. Proceeds from the IPO will help AB InBev reduce debt of over $100 billion accumulated following the purchase of rival SABMiller in late 2016. The stock of Budweiser will debut on Sept. 30. The brewer also has another goal - creating an Asian champion to spur consolidation. Analysts see the brewing assets of San Miguel of the Philippines or of ThaiBev as possible partners or targets. FILE PHOTO: The logo of Anheuser-Busch InBev is pictured outside the brewer's headquarters in Leuven, Belgium February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir/File PhotoJPMorgan and Morgan Stanley are the joint sponsors of the flotation. Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Chinese investment bank CICC are the global coordinators for the offering. Topsports, the largest sportswear retailer in China, is set to price its IPO on Oct. 3 and trading of its shares is scheduled to start on Oct 10. Topsports declined to comment on its IPO. Reporting by Julie Zhu; Writing by Sumeet Chatterjee; Editing by Christopher Cushing and Muralikumar AnantharamanOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

A new allegation of sexual misconduct has been levied against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh by journalists investigating the accusations that roiled his confirmation hearings last fall. The New York Times details new corroborations of an allegation of sexual misconduct brought by Kavanaugh’s classmate, Deborah Ramirez, as well as a previously undisclosed allegation that mirrors the one Ramirez made in 2018.The report also found the FBI declined to follow up on any of the 25 witnesses Ramirez provided to confirm her allegation, and that the agency also did not investigate the new allegation, which accused Kavanaugh of forcing his penis into the hand of a female classmate while drunk. Ramirez has said the Supreme Court justice did something similar to her at another party, exposing his penis to her, forcing her to touch it in an attempt to get away.These new allegations emerged just a day after the New York Times reported that the Justice Department will present the prestigious Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service to the lawyers who supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation. According to an email reviewed by the Times, Attorney General William Barr will present the award, which typically goes to people or teams who work on prosecution cases, next month; DOJ officials declined to comment. Kavanaugh vigorously denied this allegation during his confirmation hearing, and also denied the allegation of Christine Blasey Ford, who said he had pinned her down, covered her mouth, and groped her during a high school party. He called these allegations politically motivated, and ultimately squeaked through to being confirmed to the bench by a vote of 50-48.At the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Democrats raised concerns that he may have perjured himself on several occasions. These concerns were dismissed, however. But the new account of sexual misconduct, its similarity to Ramirez’s allegations, and fresh information about the number of people willing to confirm Ramirez’s account have once again raised concerns over the justice’s honesty during his confirmation hearings. And the fact he repeatedly denied any and allegations against him have led to new questions over whether Kavanaugh may have perjured himself, as well.Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, the journalists behind the report, spent 10 months investigating the accusations against Kavanaugh. They found Ramirez’s allegation to be credible, in part because their work showed that Yale students, as well as Ramirez’s mother, had discussed the incident at the party in the weeks following Kavanaugh’s alleged harassment.The authors were also told of a similar incident at a separate party by Kavanaugh’s classmate Max Stier, who currently runs a nonprofit in Washington, DC. Stier said he told senators and the FBI about his experience with Kavanaugh, alleging the justice forced his penis into the hand of a woman during his freshman year. The FBI did not investigate Stier’s claims, however.Nor did the agency interview anyone on the list of at least 25 people that Ramirez’s legal team provided in order to corroborate her story. Two FBI agents reportedly told Ramirez that they found her story to be credible, but said that their team could not conduct a full investigation without the support of the Republican-controlled Senate. They, of course, did not have this support, and so no investigation occurred. Ramirez did not testify during the confirmation hearings, either. Without her present and lacking any questioning of her witnesses, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) ultimately found Ramirez’s allegation to be uncorroborated, and almost all Senate Republicans — joined by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia — voted to confirm Kavanaugh.Kavanaugh declined to be interviewed by the journalists, whose work will soon be collected into a book, and has not released any kind of statement since the new allegations were made public. But on Twitter, President Donald Trump, who nominated Kavanaugh and celebrated his confirmation, blasted the claims and encouraged the justice to begin libel proceedings against his accusers. Now the Radical Left Democrats and their Partner, the LameStream Media, are after Brett Kavanaugh again, talking loudly of their favorite word, impeachment. He is an innocent man who has been treated HORRIBLY. Such lies about him. They want to scare him into turning Liberal!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019 Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019 The latest allegations against Kavanaugh, and the new reporting on Ramirez’s witnesses brought on a fresh wave of calls to remove the justice from the Supreme Court Sunday. On Twitter, #ImpeachKavanaugh began trending amid questions of possible perjury, and some Democrats, including presidential candidates Julián Castro, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Sen. Kamala Harris joined in these calls for impeachment. It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath. He should be impeached.And Congress should review the failure of the Department of Justice to properly investigate the matter. https://t.co/Yg1eh0CkNl— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) September 15, 2019 Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 15, 2019 I sat through those hearings. Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached.— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) September 15, 2019 Another Democratic candidate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, did not call for impeachment, but on ABC’s This Week Sunday, said of Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, “I think the whole thing was a sham.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Justice Brett Kavanaugh: "I strongly opposed him, based on his views on executive power, which will continue to haunt our country, as well as how he behaved, including the allegations that we are hearing more about today" https://t.co/gxl9RihwwF pic.twitter.com/pvjUbSfTS9— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) September 15, 2019 Kavanaugh’s critics first began contemplating the prospect of his impeachment immediately upon his confirmation, which was voted on by the narrowest margin in 130 years, and which followed three named accusations of sexual misconduct. (A third accuser, Julie Swetnick, said she was gang raped at a high school party at which Kavanaugh was present.)As Vox’s Dylan Matthews has written, impeaching a sitting Supreme Court justice is a process just like impeaching a president, and requires substantial political support. No Supreme Court justice has ever been removed from office through this process, and judges from lower courts who have been removed from office were typically involved in cases on which both political parties agreed that wrong had been committed: These five most recent cases involved judges whose wrongdoing was recognized by both political parties in Congress, and who had few if any defenders in the Senate. Kavanaugh and Thomas both have enthusiastic supporters in the Senate, and even if Democrats retake both houses of Congress, it’s doubtful that enough Republicans will defect from Kavanaugh to make removal viable. That said, there is no clear definition of a “high crime or misdemeanor.” “The precedents in this country, as they have developed, reflect the fact that conduct which may not constitute a crime, but which may still be serious misbehavior bringing disrepute upon the public office involved, may provide a sufficient ground for impeachment,” Bazan writes, citing the case of Judge John Pickering, who was convicted on charges including mishandling cases in his capacity as a judge. That’s not a criminal offense, but the House and Senate considered it sufficiently serious to justify impeachment. “What constitutes an impeachable offense,” Bazan concludes, “is less than completely clear.” The best answer might be that an impeachable offense is whatever the House and Senate think it is. And as Vox’s Tara Golshan has reported, questions of perjury are equally opaque. “If he deliberately misled a senator, that could qualify as perjury,” Golshan explains, but proving someone deliberately misled a senator, while not impossible to do, would take substantial evidence.The bitter political dispute over Kavanaugh’s nomination and confirmation means that no element of the case for or against him will be treated as clear-cut. And with a Republican-majority Senate, it seems unlikely that any case for impeachment will pick up steam. However, Democrats’ calls for an investigation could be answered in the House, where that party has a majority.

Venezuela is seeking the extradition from Spain of a man accused of burning another man to death during anti-government protests in Caracas two years ago.Enzo Franchini Oliveros is accused over the death of Orlando José Figuera, 21, who was beaten, stabbed, doused in petrol and set on fire during street clashes on 20 May 2017.Franchini was arrested on Monday in a town near Madrid, according to a Spanish national police spokesperson.Venezuela’s top prosecutor, Tarek William Saab, made the arrest public on Wednesday, accusing Franchini of crimes including “attempted murder and terrorism”.Protests against Nicolás Maduro rocked Venezuela for several months in 2017, prompting a brutal response from security forces. More than 130 people died in the unrest and thousands were injured – most of them anti-government protesters caught in the crackdown.Venezuela’s government has insisted Figuera was the victim of a political hate crime, who was targeted for supporting the government.But the country’s top chief prosecutor at the time of the incident, Luisa Ortega Díaz, concluded that Figuera was stabbed after an altercation over a job application. Figuera’s assailant then accused him of being a thief; he was beaten, doused with petrol and set alight.Ortega now lives in exile, having broken with Maduro’s government in August that year.The conditions that led to the 2017 protests continue today, as Maduro fends off challenges to his power from opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who is recognised as the legitimate leader by the US and most of the world’s democracies.The United Nations’ refugee agency estimates that 4 million Venezuelans have left the country to escape food shortages, insecurity and economic collapse.Last week, the UN’s human rights chief accused Maduro’s security forces of committing a series of “gross violations” against Venezuelan dissenters, including more than 5,000 extrajudicial executions. Topics Venezuela Americas news

The charred remains of 14 more victims have been found in and around the northern California town of Paradise, and two bodies were also discovered in Malibu, officials said on Saturday, raising the death toll to 25.A spokesman for the California department of forestry and fire protection, Scott Maclean, said there were no details immediately available about the circumstances of the deaths at Paradise, a mountain community some 90 miles (145km) north of Sacramento left devastated by the Camp Fire. He said the bodies were badly burned, which would make identification difficult.Authorities are bringing in a mobile DNA lab to help with identification and are encouraging relatives to donate.The Camp Fire burned down more than 6,700 homes and businesses in Paradise, more structures than any other California wildfire on record. It grew to 105,000 acres on Saturday with 20% containment.Winds were expected to dramatically increase, which could create the extreme fire conditions that caused the blaze to initially spread so rapidly.The Butte county sheriff, Kory Honea, said 110 people were listed as missing and he urged residents to be vigilant and heed evacuation warnings and orders.“I don’t like having to get up here every night to tell you about more bodies we found,” he said.In southern California, two bodies were found severely burned inside a car on a long residential driveway in Malibu, Chief John Benedict of Los Angeles County sheriff’s department, said. The home is on a winding stretch of Mulholland Highway with steep panoramic views, where on Saturday the roadway was littered with rocks, a few large boulders and fallen power lines, some of them still on fire. The Woolsey fire burning in the area was 0% contained, officials said, but added that the dry Santa Ana winds that spread the flames across 83,000 acres over the previous two days had slowed, giving firefighters a better chance of making progress on perimeter control.At least 177 homes and other structures had been destroyed, officials said.“We had a tough night in relation to this firefight,” the Los Angeles county fire chief, Daryl Osby, told reporters gathered in Thousand Oaks, explaining that more homes were lost to the flames before morning. No official count was available, but he said there had been significant loss and that damage assessment teams would work throughout the day.“From our perspective,” he said, “although we did lose a lot of homes, we saved thousands.”Calling the fire conditions the most extreme and toughest he had seen, Osby said 900 firefighters battled the blaze through the night and that all local resources were deployed. Back-up from Arizona was on the way, he said, and they would soon ask for more help from state and federal agencies.The Ventura county fire chief, Mark Lorenzen, echoed Osby, saying the agencies “made heroic efforts in saving lives and saving property”.“We know Mother Nature has given us some reprieve today,” he said, “but I need everyone to remain vigilant.”Donald Trump issued an emergency declaration to ensure federal funds were available, but he also rebuked the state. Tweeting, the president wrote: “There was no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor.” He also threatened to withhold funds, due to “gross mismanagement of the forests”.After criticism from figures including Hollywood celebrities and the California Professional Firefighters president, Brian Rice, who called Trump’s remarks “shameful” and “dangerously wrong”, the president was more conciliatory.“Our hearts are with those fighting the fires,” he wrote, also mentioning evacuees “and the families of the 11 who have died. The destruction is catastrophic. God Bless them all.”More than 200,000 people have had to flee their homes since Thursday. Flames from the Woolsey fire, the worse of two fires in southern California, forced evacuations from Malibu to West Hills and into parts of Thousand Oaks, still reeling from the deaths of 12 people in a shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill the day before the fire.Woolsey has been more destructive than most fires in the area.“It is changing constantly,” Sgt Eric Buschow of the Ventura sheriff’s department said, explaining that though winds had died down, dry conditions were fueling the blaze. “Hopefully they will make some progress today but the bad news is that by tomorrow that weather is supposed to be back with the big winds. My understanding is we are going to be at red flag conditions through Tuesday.”In northern California, around the town of Paradise, the fire began at Camp Creek Road on Thursday. Authorities are investigating whether Pacific Gas and Electric power lines may have caused the flames.Eric Reibold, the town police chief, lost his home. “I know for a fact it’s gone,” he said on Saturday. “We are going to go through this together. I’m going to be living it right along with everyone. Nobody is left untouched.”Some residents said they were not notified of the fire and struggled to evacuate. No one notification system is perfect, Honea said, and this fire is the worst-case scenario.“It was the event we have feared for a long time,” he said. Topics Wildfires The Observer California Los Angeles Natural disasters and extreme weather news

Hong Kong's Chief Executive Carrie Lam attends a news conference in Hong Kong, China September 24, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge SilvaHONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam hopes peaceful and rational dialogue will help find a way out of the protests gripping the former British colony, she said on Tuesday, as she prepares to engage with members of the community this week. The anti-government protests have roiled the Chinese-ruled city for nearly four months, plunging it into its biggest crisis in decades and posing a direct challenge to its political masters in Beijing. Reporting by James Pomfret and Donny Kwok; Writing by Anne Marie Roantree; Editing by Clarence FernandezOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

(Reuters) - Apple Inc plans to give its feature-length film productions extended theatrical releases before making them available on its streaming TV service, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. FILE PHOTO: Peter Stern, VP Services for Apple, speaks during an Apple special event at the Steve Jobs Theater in Cupertino, California, U.S., March 25, 2019. REUTERS/Stephen LamCiting people familiar with the matter, the Journal said that by pursuing deals that would see major projects screened for weeks in theaters, the iPhone maker hopes to make it easier to attract big-name directors and producers. Sofia Coppola’s “On the Rocks”, starring Bill Murray and produced in partnership with “Moonlight” producers A24, will be among Apple’s first major theatrical releases in mid-2020, it said. Apple, a late entrant to the streaming war, plans to launch Apple TV+ on Nov. 1 for $5 a month to compete with rivals such as Netflix Inc and Walt Disney’s upcoming streaming offering, Disney+. Both the rivals have deeper libraries and years of experience in making hit shows, but have taken varying approaches to how they release content. Netflix last year started debuting original films like “Roma”, “Bird Box” and “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” for limited runs in theaters, before bringing them on to the streaming service. But it has struggled to come to terms with major theater chains, who would rather have films like Martin Scorsese’s upcoming “The Irishman” be screened months before they are released online. In a victory for Netflix and other streaming services, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voted reut.rs/2Dvo8VG this year not to change its rules to demand Oscar nominees must play in theaters for a minimum period. Some prominent directors have also objected to the idea that their movies would be seen mostly on the small screen and Apple’s move may help it compete with Hollywood studios for talent. The iPhone maker is spending $2 billion on original content this year, but is still dwarfed by Netflix, which has a reported $10 billion budget for content and 151 million paid subscribers, as well as the major studios. Apple did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. Shares of the company were trading down marginally at $218.55 in afternoon trading. Reporting by Vibhuti Sharma in Bengaluru; Editing by Patrick Graham and Arun KoyyurOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

There he is, the size of a Candy Land piece, right on the ottoman in front of me: teeny, tiny LeBron James. He jets down the Golden State Warriors’ court—sitting flush on the chocolate leather—and dunks in a hoop the size of my wedding band. No, I haven’t had a psychedelic sandwich for lunch. I’ve just been wearing what looks like a pair of oversize swim goggles, attached to a Discman thingy on my hip—the Magic Leap One Creator Edition....

>> Bitcoin is worth exactly what the next guy will pay for it> So is everything else in the universe.Not really. Tangible things like cars, houses, etc. all have an underlying value.Instruments such as stocks, bonds, insurance portfolios, loans, also have a valuebut it's less tangible.What this means in the practical sense is if I try to sell a $100K house for $200KI may get stupid lucky... but if I don't... if I bring that price below $100K, someonewill come buy it. Because it's worth it. Not j

Bitcoin awoke from its slumber this week. The cryptocurrency’s price, which after reaching $20,000 in 2017 has languished near $4,000 for most of 2019, surged more than 20% on Tuesday (April 2), surpassing $5,000. The cause? A mystery trader—or group of traders—reportedly placed a series of large orders on major exchanges, including Coinbase, Kraken, and Bitstamp.“There has been a single order that has been algorithmically-managed across these three venues, of around 20,000 [bitcoins],” said Oliver von Landsberg-Sadie, founder of BCB, a cryptocurrency financial services firm. “If you look at the volumes on each of those three exchanges – there were in-concert, synchronized, units of volume of around 7,000 [bitcoins] in an hour,” he explained to Reuters.Indeed, order books reflect the surge, which occurred between 9:30 pm and 10:00 pm PT April 1. Here’s the view from Kraken:

On Friday, a New Yorker piece outlined in vivid, horrific detail how the MIT Media Lab took money from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — and how hard it worked to keep his contributions anonymous. Over the weekend, director Joi Ito resigned, and employees past and present came forward with stories of a deeply unhealthy internal culture — one that was obviously a product, in part, of its close, secret ties with Epstein.The obvious question: What on earth were they thinking? The MIT Media Lab — an interdisciplinary research center affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — was well regarded, well funded, had great publicity, and was attached to one of the world’s best universities. Why would they risk it all to attract donations from someone like Epstein? And how could people write emails like the ones revealed in the New Yorker piece — “jeffrey money, needs to be anonymous” — without realizing they were on the path to disaster?On Sunday, we got a partial answer via an essay by Larry Lessig, a professor of law at Harvard Law School and the former director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. He knew all along that the MIT Media Lab was taking Epstein’s money, he said. He thought it was the right thing to do. So, he says, did the team at the Media Lab.Their justification is simple: If someone is a bad person, taking their anonymous donations is actually the best thing you can do. The money gets put to a better use, and they don’t get to accumulate prestige or connections from the donation because the public wouldn’t know about it.This argument isn’t that eccentric. Within philanthropy, it has been seriously raised as a reasonable answer to the challenging question of how organizations should deal with donations from bad actors. Now, the mess at the MIT Media Lab is forcing a reckoning.The hope was that anonymity would make it harder for bad people to benefit reputationally from their giving. What happened instead was that anonymity became a shield to dodge accountability, transparency, and common sense. The secret was corrosive to the internal culture at the Media Lab, and in the end, it was a ticking time bomb guaranteed to eventually, disastrously explode. In trying to think about doing philanthropy right, we’re back to the drawing board: How should organizations treat donations from bad actors? Who would you rather have $5 million: Jeffrey Epstein, or a scientist who wants to use it for research? Presumably the scientist, right? In a nutshell, that’s the argument against shaming people and organizations that take money from multimillionaires who arrived at their fortunes unethically — whether they’re involved in a company found to have used enslaved labor, accused of hiding evidence of the opioid crisis, or, in Epstein’s case, convicted of procuring minors for prostitution and suspected of having used their hedge fund to enable and cover for the abuse of girls and young women. Of course, this argument overlooks some important considerations. Yes, it’s better for Jeffrey Epstein’s money to go to someone else — but what if Epstein is able to leverage the donations in order to accrue power, connections, and influence that lets him dodge additional charges? (He seems to have routinely used his power and connections to do exactly that.)That’s where anonymous donations seemed like the perfect solution. If a donation is anonymous, the theory goes — that is, anonymous to the public — the giver cannot accrue any prestige or social capital from it. They can’t build connections. The gift doesn’t benefit them. And the money is now in better hands. What’s not to like?“I think that universities should not be the launderers of reputation,” Lessig wrote in his essay on Sunday, defending the Epstein gifts to the MIT Media Lab. “I think that they should not accept blood money. Or more precisely, I believe that if they are going to accept blood money ... or the money from people convicted of a crime ..., they should only ever accept that money anonymously. Anonymity — or as my colleague Chris Robertson would put it, blinding — is the least a university should do to avoid becoming the mechanism through which great wrong is forgiven.”Such an argument about anonymity might seem like a stretch. But there’s been some serious thinking about how anonymity might enable donations while reducing the influence of the donors. Take Yale Law professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres, who proposed that political donations be required to be anonymous — so you could support preferred candidates, but not purchase influence. When the Met renounced further donations from the Sackler fortune associated with the opioid crisis, the decision spurred renewed interest in the idea that anonymity could separate the donor and the donation. “If museums, universities, opera houses and symphony halls stipulated that all donations had to be anonymous, the morality of the donor — or the need to assess whether ill-gotten gains lurked beneath a specific donation — would be a moot point,” one letter in the New York Times argued.“Everyone seems to treat it as if the anonymity and secrecy around Epstein’s gift are a measure of some kind of moral failing,” Lessig writes. “I see it as exactly the opposite. ... Secrecy is the only saving virtue of accepting money like this.”Everyone involved may have gone into their partnership with Epstein with the best of intentions — or, at least, with some justifications in mind — but it’s hard to dispute that disaster resulted. The New Yorker reports that Epstein was aggressively courted by the Media Lab, which consulted him about the use of funds. He even brought young women in tow when visiting the Media Lab to meet with senior researchers in person as a VIP. (“All of us women made it a point to be super nice to them,” Signe Swenson, a former employee at the lab, told the New Yorker. “We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they’re not there by choice, we could maybe help them.”)Researchers with concerns say they were ignored. Epstein was credited with securing contributions from other donors — up to $7.5 million in total. Whatever the Media Lab’s intentions, it seems that Epstein leveraged his connections with the institute to increase his personal standing. “Epstein used the status and prestige afforded him by his relationships with élite institutions to shield himself from accountability and continue his alleged predation,” the New Yorker argues. Clearly, lots of things went wrong here. The first was that while the donations were anonymous in the sense of being secret from the public, they were known to the staff at the MIT Media Lab — meaning Epstein still got much of the influence that the anonymity was supposed to cut him off from. He got a say in how the Media Lab spent the money and got special opportunities for face-to-face time with influential people. The anonymity was meant to separate the man from the money. It did not do that.“Donations are never fully anonymous,” a paper in Nature Human Behavior looking at the dynamics of anonymous donation points out. “These donations are often revealed to the recipient, the inner circle of friends or fellow do-gooders.”Another problem was that Epstein’s anonymity was always fragile. On a few occasions detailed in the New Yorker piece, information identifying him as the Media Lab’s secret VIP donor was spread more widely than intended; eventually, of course, the whole situation became explosively public. The case for anonymous donations assumes they’ll remain anonymous forever. In reality, it only takes one disgruntled ex-staffer, strategic leak, or mistaken email forward to lift the thin veil of anonymity. Trying to keep secrets like this is often bad for an institution’s culture, too. In general, it’s good for nonprofits to be transparent with their staff and with their other donors. The Epstein situation forced MIT Media Lab to evolve the sort of institutional culture that could keep Epstein secret — which meant, in the New Yorker piece, dismissing and ignoring the concerns of researchers who objected to the situation, keeping the scientists who objected to Epstein away when he visited, and floating trial balloons during the hiring process to screen out anyone who’d object to working with Epstein. Others have pointed out that Epstein’s presence meant a hostile environment for the women who worked in the lab. Epstein shows up to @medialab with very young women. @Joi happily takes him on a tour while female lab staff are concerned the women are being held against their will. The women stop work to figure out how potential trafficking victims *escorted by a huge donor* could be freed.— Erie (@Erie) September 8, 2019 If female lab staff have to plot a way to literally free people being held in your building while the boss and a top donor go on a tour...How many people have you missed out on? Who quit, avoided, couldn’t do their best work?Is what MIT lost worth what Joi and Epstein gained? pic.twitter.com/xuLZqMaPwc— Erie (@Erie) September 8, 2019 These examples make one thing clear: Keeping a big secret limits who can work for you. It has to be people who will keep the secret, either because they agree or because they’re intimidated into staying quiet. It requires you to pressure anyone who doesn’t agree with keeping the secret. This is bad for the internal culture of any nonprofit.Finally, even if the intent of keeping a donation anonymous is shutting the donor off from influence, it’s easy to suspect there’s another motive at play: dodging controversy. If the MIT Media Lab had been required to disclose the donations from Epstein, they would also have been required to explain their justifications for taking money from him, their assessment of whether he posed a risk to his young “assistants,” and their assessment of whether they were giving him more contacts to leverage.Now that the whole situation has come to light, those justifications look confused, ill-conceived, and incomplete. If they’d been subject to public scrutiny from the start, maybe that would have been apparent much sooner. The lack of scrutiny meant less need for the lab to justify itself — but more thought about the justification for taking the money might actually have been healthy and badly needed.For all those reasons, I’m no longer on board with the argument that it’s fine to take money from bad actors as long as it’s anonymous. It seems to have been incredibly destructive to the MIT Media Lab, for reasons that would apply elsewhere, too. But what do we do instead? I’d still prefer Epstein’s money be in any hands other than his. One thing worth noting is that a genuinely, truly anonymous donation would have been fine. If Epstein had sent a series of monthly small-dollar donations to the Media Lab, in varying amounts, and no one at the lab had ever learned that all these donations were from the same person let alone who that person was, then there’d have been no potential for institutional misconduct, undue influence, and connections to leverage. Of course, it’s hard to move huge amounts of money that way, and Epstein would almost certainly never have done this, precisely because he’d get nothing in return. But this kind of genuine anonymity seems fine to me.What about when a bad actor approaches an organization about a donation they want to make?There are downsides to any approach here. Declining the money has downsides, especially in the case of charities that desperately need it to continue providing essential services. Accepting it risks legitimatizing the donor and empowering them to evade justice as Epstein did for so long. On the whole, I think this situation makes the case for letting the donations happen openly in the light of day — and face appropriate public scrutiny and criticism. If the organization isn’t willing to weather the public criticism, that suggests that perhaps the trade-off is the wrong one. This, of course, is a system that only works if there’s a robust public dialogue critiquing philanthropy while recognizing the good it has the potential to do in the right circumstances. Luckily, there’s been a lot more conversation about the role and effects of philanthropy in the last few years, and such a robust dialogue seems possible. And openness is protective against the things that went wrong at MIT — a culture of secrecy that enabled people to intellectualize the indefensible and end up giving cover to a sexual predator.Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.