Le Journal

Tandis que les marchés traditionnels vacillent dans l’attente des résultats de Nvidia, le bitcoin surprend en rebondissant de 4 % mardi. Dans un climat tendu, la crypto s’affranchit des indices boursiers américains, tous en recul, et intrigue les investisseurs. Ce sursaut est-il le signe d’un nouvel élan haussier ou l’expression d’un simple sursaut spéculatif ? Le timing, à la veille d’un verdict clé sur l’IA, rend ce mouvement d’autant plus stratégique. L’article Le Bitcoin rebondit de 4 % et surclasse les actions avant la publication des résultats de Nvidia est apparu en premier sur Cointribune.

Le marché crypto vacille. Le bitcoin a perdu plus de 10 % en quelques jours et peine à retrouver son élan. Arthur Hayes, figure emblématique de l'écosystème, pointe du doigt un coupable inattendu : la contraction de la liquidité en dollars. Sa thèse bouscule les analyses conventionnelles et ouvre un débat sur les vrais moteurs du marché. L’article Le Bitcoin sous pression à cause du dollar selon Arthur Hayes est apparu en premier sur Cointribune.

Logitech's latest MX Master 4 mouse features haptic feedback and deep customization, complementing a premium build that's hard to pass on.

I installed and ran theHarvester to see my Google.com footprint, and the results were astonishing. I'll show you how to get started.

Protesters hold signs opposing proposed redistricting, immigration enforcement, and other Trump-backed legislation and proposed changes. | Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images In a decision that could potentially reshape the 2026 midterm elections and cement the Democratic Party’s future control of the US House, a federal court just struck down the gerrymandered Texas maps that President Donald Trump pressured that state to enact. If the decision holds, it could cost Republicans as many as five House seats. And that’s not all. The most remarkable thing about the three-judge panel’s decision in League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Abbott is that it turns on an incompetent decision by Trump’s own administration. As Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, explains in the court’s opinion, Texas lawmakers initially “didn’t have much appetite to redistrict on purely partisan grounds” — even as Trump urged them to do so. But Texas Republicans appear to have changed their mind after the Justice Department sent a letter last July to Texas’s top officials, which demanded that the state redraw several districts to change their racial makeup. That letter, as I’ll explain in more detail below, misread a federal appeals court opinion to mean that the state was required to remake its maps. According to Judge Brown’s opinion, “it’s challenging to unpack the DOJ Letter because it contains so many factual, legal, and typographical errors.” He added that “even attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General — who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration — describe the DOJ Letter as ‘legally[] unsound,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘ham-fisted,’ and ‘a mess.’” In reality, the Supreme Court has long held that “if a legislature gives race a predominant role in redistricting decisions, the resulting map” is subject to the most skeptical level of constitutional review and “may be held unconstitutional.” When the Justice Department told Texas to redraw several of its congressional districts to change their racial makeup, it ordered Texas to give “race a predominant role.” Oops. Notably, the Court has held that this restriction on maps that predominantly rely on race can be found in the Constitution itself, not in federal statutes like the Voting Rights Act. So, even if the Supreme Court guts the Voting Rights Act, as it is expected to do during its current term, that will not undermine the panel’s decision in LULAC. Key Texas officials, moreover, appear to have embraced the DOJ’s call to redraw the state’s maps for racial reasons. As Brown writes, “though the Trump Administration’s plea to redistrict for political reasons failed to gain any immediate traction, the Administration’s demand that Texas redistrict for racial reasons achieved quick results.” Just two days after the DOJ sent its letter, “Governor Abbott issued a proclamation adding the following item to the agenda for the upcoming special legislative session: ‘Legislation that provides a revised congressional redistricting plan in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.’” Abbott, in other words, specifically convened the state legislature to comply with the Justice Department’s demand for a racial gerrymander. There’s also other evidence that race predominated the recent redistricting in Texas. Abbott told CNN’s Jake Tapper, for example, that the maps were being redrawn to eliminate districts where Black and Hispanic voters combined made up a majority, and to replace them with seats that “turned out to provide more seats for Hispanics.” Brown’s opinion also quotes state lawmakers who indicated that they shared the DOJ’s racial goals. The irony of this decision is that, if Texas had enacted the exact same maps without bringing up the topic of race, then they would have been legal under current Supreme Court precedents. The Trump administration sabotaged its own redistricting effort by feeding Texas a…