Two Assange supporters — the English rock musician Brian Eno and the Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis — speculated that Ecuador was reacting to tweets in which Mr. Assange criticized the Spanish government’s detention of Catalan separatists and the recent arrest, in Germany, of the separatist leader Carles Puigdemont. They called efforts to isolate Mr. Assange “appalling.”
This was not the first time Ecuador had cut off Mr. Assange: It did so in October 2016, saying it feared being sucked into efforts to interfere in the American election.
Mr. Assange went to the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questioning about rape allegations. Sweden dropped that inquiry last May, saying that too much time had passed.
But Mr. Assange still faces a British charge for skipping bail and, more pressingly, fears being arrested and deported to the United States. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fueled such fears last year when he said that arresting Mr. Assange was “a priority.”
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
View all New York Times newsletters.
See Sample
Manage Email Preferences
Not you?
Privacy Policy
Opt out or contact us anytime
Mr. Assange, a 46-year-old native of Australia, has long been an irritant for the British authorities. A junior foreign minister, Alan Duncan, told members of Parliament this week, “It’s about time that this miserable little worm walked out of the embassy and gave himself up to British justice.”
Now, the patience of his Ecuadorean hosts appears to be wearing thin as well.
Ecuador’s foreign minister, María Fernanda Espinosa, said Wednesday that officials would meet in London next week with Mr. Assange’s lawyers to explore additional measures that Ecuador might take in connection what she called Mr. Assange’s “noncompliance” with his agreement not to meddle in foreign affairs.
“We are evaluating the measures with our lawyers,” she said. “We will explore what are the alternatives that allow us the framework of international law and our own legislation and Ecuadorean Constitution.”
She added, “The most important thing is that Ecuador maintains a dialogue with the United Kingdom to find a definitive and lasting solution to this situation that the current government has inherited.”
Her remarks alluded to the distaste that Ecuador’s president, Lenín Moreno, has expressed toward Mr. Assange. Although it was Mr. Moreno’s government that gave Mr. Assange citizenship, the president appeared to have done so reluctantly, and mainly out of respect for his predecessor and ally, Rafael Correa.
In images and in words, Mr. Kim and Mr. Xi signaled that they had repaired the relationship between their countries, which had soured as Mr. Kim had accelerated his nuclear program and Mr. Xi had responded by endorsing — and enforcing — more punishing sanctions proposed by the United States.
“The friendship between North Korea and China that was personally created and nurtured together by former generations of leaders from both our sides is unshakable,” Mr. Kim told Mr. Xi, according to Xinhua. Mr. Xi went out of his way to recall the warm friendship between his father, a high-ranking Communist Party official from the Mao era, and Mr. Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il, the North’s previous leader.
It is too soon to say whether the meeting marks a softening of China’s posture toward Mr. Kim or of its commitment to international sanctions against North Korea. But the visit served to highlight Beijing’s unique leverage over North Korea, even as Mr. Trump is threatening China with a trade war.
Mr. Trump can talk about maintaining “maximum pressure” on the North, but ultimately China — the North’s main trade partner — still decides what that means, because it can choose how strictly to enforce sanctions.
“China is saying to the United States and the rest of the world: Anyone who wants a deal on anything on the future of the Korean Peninsula, and certainly something which deals with nukes, don’t think you can walk around us, guys,” Kevin Rudd, a former Australian prime minister who is on good terms with the Chinese leadership, said in Hong Kong on Wednesday.
PhotoMr. Kim, Mr. Xi and their wives at a banquet in Beijing this week. The visit highlighted Beijing’s unique leverage over North Korea, even as President Trump is threatening China with a trade war. Credit
North Korean Central News Agency
Bruce Klingner, a former Korea analyst at the C.I.A. who is now at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, said China had been bypassed by the diplomatic outreach that resulted in Mr. Trump’s agreement to meet with Mr. Kim. “Beijing has been on the sidelines of North Korea’s recent charm offensive and likely saw it necessary to finally invite Kim for a summit to get a readout of the upcoming diplomatic meetings and to be seen as a major player,” he said.
The Chinese government said it had briefed the White House on Mr. Kim’s visit, adding that Mr. Xi had sent a personal message to Mr. Trump.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
On Wednesday morning, Mr. Trump expressed optimism on Twitter about the potential for diplomatic success, saying there was “a good chance” that Mr. Kim would “do what is right for his people and for humanity.”
At her daily briefing, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, offered no concern about Mr. Kim’s visit to Beijing but declined to disclose the thrust of Mr. Xi’s message. “We feel like we’ve made significant progress and we’re going to continue moving forward in this process,” she said.
But there was little in the public accounts of Mr. Xi’s discussions with Mr. Kim to support such a positive assessment. Although Xinhua quoted Mr. Kim as saying he was open to talks with Mr. Trump and committed to denuclearization, North Korea’s own state media made no mention of either.
Xinhua also quoted Mr. Kim as proposing “phased, synchronized measures” by South Korea and the United States — a phrase that suggests a desire to negotiate a gradual drawdown of his arsenal, but which also echoes the North’s position in past talks that dragged on and ultimately failed. One major difference between then and now is that North Korea has a far more advanced nuclear arsenal.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
View all New York Times newsletters.
See Sample
Manage Email Preferences
Not you?
Privacy Policy
Opt out or contact us anytime
Mr. Trump’s incoming national security adviser, John R. Bolton, meanwhile, has expressed little patience for extended negotiations. He has said that North Korea should be asked to park its nuclear arsenal at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in Tennessee.
Some analysts in Washington saw Mr. Kim’s visit to Beijing as a masterstroke that softened his international image as a rogue figure and made him look as if he genuinely wants a peaceful resolution to the conflict, potentially complicating Mr. Trump’s task in their upcoming meeting.
“You’re building this momentum, looking reasonable, looking willing to denuclearize,” said Sue Mi Terry, a Korea scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, referring to the North Koreans. All of which makes it harder for Mr. Trump to blame the North Koreans if talks do not yield a breakthrough. “If we don’t play ball, with this hawkish team in place with Bolton and so on, at least perception-wise we look like we’re the problem,” she said.
If China decides to soften its stance on sanctions and act as North Korea’s protector, Mr. Kim will enter the talks in a considerably stronger position than he otherwise would have.
PhotoMr. Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il, left, in Beijing with then-President Jiang Zemin of China in 2000. When this visit took place, Mr. Kim — like his son today — had held power in North Korea for about six years and was preparing for a summit meeting with South Korea’s president. Credit
Xinhua, via Associated Press
“It is very unlikely that Kim Jong-un consulted with the Chinese before offering to meet Trump,” said Sergey Radchenko, a professor of international relations at Cardiff University in Wales. “This in itself was a rebellious affront to the Chinese leadership. But by doing this, Kim immeasurably strengthened his negotiating position vis-à-vis the Chinese. He came to Beijing not as a supplicant but as an equal.”
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Victor Cha, who was at one point Mr. Trump’s choice for ambassador to South Korea until the decision was abandoned, said that besides the possibility of a reconciliation between Beijing and Pyongyang, “the most potentially intriguing element of this” is that Mr. Kim traveled with his entire entourage out of the country. “Shows he’s not worried about leaving the palace vacant and vulnerable to some coup and that he will go abroad,” Mr. Cha said.
Many analysts said they believed China had initiated the visit, essentially telling Mr. Kim that he could no longer afford to be cavalier about his bigger, richer neighbor, and telegraphing to Mr. Trump that America could pay heavily for keeping China on the outside.
Beneath the new bonhomie in the official accounts of Mr. Kim’s trip, the edgy nature of the seven-decade-old China-North Korea relationship was still apparent.
No agreements between the two leaders were announced, even on basic issues. Mr. Xi, in his public comments, made no reference to Mr. Kim’s expected meeting with Mr. Trump, an omission that may have reflected Mr. Xi’s displeasure at being left on the sidelines.
There was also no public comment in Beijing about what Mr. Kim was planning to offer Mr. Trump or what role China would play as the talks approached, questions of the utmost importance to China.
While China supports the international effort to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons, it has also been careful not to press the North hard enough to risk a collapse of the Kim regime, which could potentially lead to a united Korean Peninsula, under an American security umbrella, on China’s border.
“China needs to know North Korea’s calculations,” said Da Wei, a professor at the University of International Relations in Beijing. “Kim knows the negotiations cannot fully succeed without China’s support. China’s involvement will make any solution more viable.”
Some analysts said Mr. Kim was repeating a pattern set by his father, Kim Jong-il, who visited China before his 2000 summit meeting with South Korea’s then-president, Kim Dae-jung. Kim Jong-il was then about six years into his tenure as North Korea’s leader, just as his son is now.
“Now six years into his own reign, Kim III seeks to play the role of the proactive, peace-seeking statesman,” said Lee Sung-yoon, a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
He may hope to get Mr. Trump to settle for “another faulty, open-ended, non-biting nuclear deal” that would make it “politically near-impossible for the U.S. to talk about, let alone implement, a pre-emptive strike, John Bolton at the head of the National Security Council notwithstanding,” Mr. Lee said.
Image caption
Distraught relatives gathered outside the police station
Rioting and a fire at a police station in the the Venezuelan city of Valencia, in Carabobo State, have left 68 people dead, government officials say.
Chief State Prosecutor Tarek Saab said an investigation into what had happened would begin immediately.
The blaze reportedly started after prisoners set fire to mattresses in an attempt to break out on Wednesday.
Police used tear gas to disperse relatives who surrounded the station after news of the fire broke.
State official Jesus Santander confirmed a police officer had been shot in the aftermath of the blaze, which has been brought under control.
He said the state of Carabobo was in mourning after the incident.
A tragedy never far away?
By Will Grant, BBC News Latin America Correspondent
Even by Venezuela’s prison standards, where conditions are among the worst in the world, this was a huge fire with devastating consequences.
Families, desperate for news, gathered outside the facility in Valencia, only to be repelled by police who fired tear gas on the crowd.
Inside, scores of inmates had been killed, many from smoke inhalation.
At this stage, the official version suggests the fire was started deliberately, as a riot took hold.
The government of President Nicolas Maduro has said a full investigation will begin immediately. However, for the loved ones outside, it is a time of grief and anguish.
Image copyright Reuters
Very few clear explanations from the authorities have been given and figures as to the number of dead continue to rise.
There have been several serious fires and riots in Venezuelan jails over the past decade. However, human rights NGOs say, given the severe overcrowding and inhumane conditions in the South American nation’s prison system, a tragedy of this magnitude was never far away.
Some women and children who were visiting inmates are thought to be among the dead.
Venezuela country profile
Venezuela’s prisons are notoriously overcrowded, with violence and deadly riots are common.
Image copyright Reuters
Image caption
Relatives and local people surrounded police cars at the scene, desperate for information
The country has struggled to accommodate its prisoners amidst an ongoing economic crisis, leading to convicts being held at temporary facilities such as the one in Valencia.
Carlos Nieto, head of the association Una Ventana a la Libertad (A Window on Freedom), says some police facilities are overfilled at five times their capacity.
Last month inmates at a different prison in Carabobo took a number of prisoners and guards hostage in another riot.
Protesters gathered by the hundreds at the Sacramento City Council meeting Tuesday night, and, like slain citizen Stephon Clark, they held up their cellphones.
“Does this look like a gun?” activist Berry Accius asked Mayor Darrell Steinberg and the other members of the council as those in the crowd extended their arms, phones in hand.
They were protesting the March 18 killing of Clark, 22, an unarmed black man shot at 20 times by two police officers. Police said the officers believed Clark had a gun, but only a white iPhone was found near his body.
The demonstrators on Tuesday were led by Stevonte Clark, who burst into the meeting about 30 minutes after it began, walked to the council’s dais and sat on it, chanting his brother’s name. His eyes met Steinberg’s.
“Stephon Clark! Stephon Clark!” he yelled, clad in a black shirt bearing his brother’s face.
And in front of Steinberg, he addressed the crowd: “The mayor and the city of Sacramento has failed all of you.” The demonstration prompted a recess and forced Steinberg to end the meeting early, citing safety concerns.
Steinberg said Clark’s disruption was inappropriate, but the moment revealed undercurrents of frustration and tension in a community marked by skepticism of police accountability.
“There is deep pain and anguish,” Steinberg told The Washington Post in a phone interview on Wednesday. “It’s our job to bear some of that pain, and to help translate the anguish and grieving and the historic pain [of black communities] into tangible and real change.”
Released body-camera footage of the incident, including delays in providing first aid and the officers’ failure to announce themselves as police, has prompted outrage in Sacramento, calls for accountability and numerous protests amid recent police killings of unarmed black men in the country.
Stevonte Clark could not be reached for comment. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) and Sacramento Police Chief Daniel Hahn announced earlier Tuesday that the state Department of Justice would provide independent oversight of the police investigation into the shooting.
“We take our responsibility in full recognition of the importance of getting it right,” Becerra said. “Because it’s about respect and trust. It’s about identifying ways to achieve public safety and safer outcomes in the future.”
Steinberg was also in attendance for the announcement. He had briefly spoken about the conduct of the officers, citing the ongoing investigation. But, he said, “regardless of the conclusions there, the outcome was just plain wrong. A 22-year-old man should not have died that way.”
Policy evaluations are underway, he said, including an April 10 department-led review of relevant procedures, like how foot pursuits should be conducted and regulations for applying first aid to suspects.
Police say that Clark was breaking into vehicles and that the officers pursued him as he headed to his grandmother’s house, where he had been staying. One officer shouted ‘Gun!’ in the belief that Clark was armed. The two officers took cover, and seconds later, fired 10 rounds each, striking Clark an unknown number of times. More than five minutes passed before officers provided medical attention. Clark died at the scene.
“It raises serious questions, obviously,” Steinberg said about the officers’ apparent failure to identify themselves as police.
The delay in providing medical attention, another focus of the outcry, is also a concern. “I am troubled by that,” he said, but he added that the probe may reveal why that had occurred.
Sacramento police declined to elaborate on their policy on providing live-saving aid to citizens they injure. “That is part of our ongoing investigation of this entire incident,” spokesman Vance Chandler said Wednesday. A single sentence of department guidance reads: “Officers shall provide first aid to injured parties if it can be done safely.”
Chandler also declined to describe department policy detailing how and when officers can disable their body-camera video and audio feed. In the closing moments of the body-camera footage released by the department, another police official asks the two officers involved in the shooting to mute their body cameras. The department has not released their names amid threats to their safety.
Family members and activists accuse police in general of treating black men with more violence. Steinberg said he believes unconscious racial bias is linked to police shootings generally, but he stopped short of describing any link to the Clark killing.
“I don’t believe our cops are racist. But that’s a different question from whether [implicit] racism pervades every aspect of community life, especially in law enforcement and communities of color.”
An analysis by The Post found that 987 people were killed by police last year — 68 of them unarmed. Clark is at least the sixth person fatally shot by the Sacramento Police Department since the beginning of 2015. Five of them were black men; the other was a white man. At least 230 people have been killed by police this year, according to The Post’s database on fatal force.
The White House on Wednesday called Clark’s death “a terrible incident” but declined to weigh in further on the shooting or the decision by Louisiana’s attorney general, announced Tuesday, not to seek charges against the officers who fatally shot Alton Sterling in 2016.
In Sacramento, the protests continue, and citizens are closely watching the outcome of the investigation. Steinberg said he is “extremely conscious” of nationwide accountability concerns involving police officers escaping punishment after they were found to have violated the public’s trust.
A Post analysis published last year found that since 2006, the nation’s largest police departments have fired at least 1,881 officers for misconduct. Departments reinstated 450 officers after appeals required by union contracts.
California laws minimize what law enforcement agencies publicly release after incidents such as officer-involved shootings, including the disciplinary measures taken and the investigators’ conclusions. “That’s not right. The public has the right to know,” Steinberg said.
All eyes are on Sacramento to serve as an example, he said.
“We need to ask and answer that seminal question: ‘Is there not a better way?’ And the answer has to be yes.”
WASHINGTON, March 28 (Reuters) – The internal watchdog at the U.S. Justice Department said on Wednesday he is launching a review into allegations by Republican lawmakers that the FBI made serious missteps when it sought a warrant to monitor a former adviser to President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign.
Michael Horowitz, the department’s inspector general, said in a statement his review will examine whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department followed proper procedures when they applied for a warrant with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to secretly conduct surveillance on Carter Page and his ties to Russia.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions told reporters last month he planned to ask Horowitz to investigate the alleged surveillance abuses.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
Up Next
See Gallery
The allegations were outlined in a memo commissioned by U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and declassified for public release by Trump, over the objections of Justice Department officials and Democrats on the panel.
The Republican memo claims that the FBI used in part a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to justify the warrant, and failed to disclose to the court that Steele was employed by a firm funded by Democrats to do opposition research on Trump’s business dealings.
The FBI staunchly opposed the public release of the memo at the time, saying there were “material omissions of fact.”
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have since released their own memo, accusing Republicans of deliberately omitting facts in an effort to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia.
The Democrats concluded that the Justice Department did not engage in misconduct when applying for the warrant.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat Jerrold Nadler said it is a “shame” that Horowitz must devote resources to probe a “conspiracy theory.”
Trump lambasted Sessions in late February for referring the Republican memo to Horowitz for investigation. The president wrote in a tweet: “Why is A.G. Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate massive FISA abuse? Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey, etc.”
Trump’s tweet mischaracterized the role inspector generals play in investigating alleged misconduct inside federal agencies, and it prompted Sessions to issue a sharp rebuttal defending his decision.
Jeff Sessions through the years:
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions pauses at a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., March 2, 2017.
(REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama arrives at Trump Tower for meetings with President-elect Donald Trump works from home November 15, 2016. Making the vital choices for President-elect Donald Trump’s White House cabinet has sparked intense infighting, CNN reported Monday, with one source calling it a ‘knife fight.’ The jobs to be filled include national security positions and West Wing posts, the television news network said, as Trump gathered with transition team members in New York.
(TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)
President-elect Donald Trump greets Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump’s picks for attorney general, during a thank you rally in Ladd-Peebles Stadium on December 17, 2016 in Mobile, Alabama. President-elect Trump has been visiting several states that he won, to thank people for their support during the U.S. election.
(Photo by Mark Wallheiser/Getty Images)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., right, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., nominee for attorney general, talk near the Ohio Clock after a meeting in the Capitol, November 30, 2016.
(Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
Attorney General-designate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., speaks during a ‘USA Thank You Tour 2016’ event at the LaddPeebles Stadium in Mobile, AL on Saturday, Dec. 17, 2016.
(Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Senator Jeff Sessions, attorney general pick for U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, right, listens as Senator Charles ‘Chuck’ Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, speaks during a meeting in Washington, D.C., U.S, on Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2016. Sessions, the 69-year-old, four-term Alabama Republican is a hard-liner on free trade and immigration, arguing that prospective immigrants don’t have constitutional protections.
(Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
US President-elect Donald Trump (C) talks with Alabama Governor Robert Bentley (2nd L) and US Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions (L) as he arrives in Mobile, Alabama, for a ‘Thank You Tour 2016’ rally on December 17, 2016.
(JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
Mike Pence, 2016 Republican vice presidential nominee, left, and Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, gesture during a campaign event for Donald Trump, 2016 Republican presidential nominee, not pictured, in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S., on Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2016. Trump returned to form in Phoenix Wednesday night with a nativist immigration plan definitively ruling out legal status for undocumented immigrants, as well as proposing to build a wall on the southern border of the United States and forcing Mexico to cover the cost.
(Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
MADISON, AL – FEBRUARY 28: United States Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, beomes the first Senator to endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States at Madison City Stadium on February 28, 2016 in Madison, Alabama.
(Photo by Taylor Hill/WireImage)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)(L) speaks during a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, February 3, 2015 in Washington, DC. The committee is hearing testimony Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan on President Obamas FY2016 budget request. Also pitcured are (L-R), Chairman Michael Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sen. Rob Poertman (R-OH).
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) (2nd L) speaks as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (L), and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) (R) listen during a news conference September 9, 2014 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The legislators discussed on immigration reform during the news conference.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
House Budget Chairman, Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL., and members of the House Budget Committee during the House Budget Committee’s news conference on the ‘Introduction of the FY2013 Budget – Pathway to Prosperity.’
(Photo By Douglas Graham/Roll Call)
Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., left, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, leave the Capitol en route to a news conference to oppose the immigration reform bill in the Senate.
(Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli performs during the National Prayer Breakfast as First Lady Michelle Obama (L), US President Barack Obama (2nd L) and Senator Jeff Sessions (3rd L), R-AL, watch on February 7, 2013 at a hotel in Washington, DC.
(MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL., talks with Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA., as they make their way to the Senate policy luncheons through the Senate subway in the U.S. Capitol on September 17, 2013.
(Photo By Douglas Graham/CQ Roll Call)
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., is interviewed by the press during the weekly Senate policy luncheons. The Senate vote will this afternoon on Obama’s small-business tax relief legislation.
(Photo by Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call)
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., speaks at the ‘Iran Democratic Transition Conference,’ hosted by the Institute of World Politics in Capitol Visitor Center. The conference explored the prospects of political change in Iran.
(Photo By Tom Williams/Roll Call)
US President Barack Obama (C) signs the Fair Sentencing Act in the Oval Office of the White House, on August 3, 2010 in Washington, DC. The law will aim to correct the disparities between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. Also in the picture (L to R); Attorney General Eric Holder, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Democratic Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas. Previously, people in possession of powder cocaine could carry up to one hundred times more grams than crack offenders and receive the same sentence.
(Photo by Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan (L) shakes hands with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) (R), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, while Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) looks on, after she arrived for the first day of her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill June 28, 2010 in Washington, DC. Kagan is U.S. President Barack Obama’s second Supreme Court nominee since taking office.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The new co chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Jeff Sessions (D-AL) works in his office on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning May 02, 2009. Sen. Sessions speaks to Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) before visiting with US Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
(The Washington Post via Getty Images)
US President Barack Obama (3rd-R) and Vice President Joe Biden (3rd-L) meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (2nd-R) ,D-NV, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (2nd-L),R-KY, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (R) ,D-VT, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (L),R-AL, about the upcoming Supreme Court nomination on May 13, 2009 at the White House in Washington, DC.
(TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (R) listens as ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) (L) questions Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor during the second day of her confirmation hearings July 14, 2009 in Washington, DC. Sotomayor faces a full day of questioning from Senators on the committee today. Sotomayor, an appeals court judge and U.S. President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, will become the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court if confirmed.
(Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
US President George W. Bush (L) listens as Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions (R) speaks during a Republican fundraiser for Sessions at the Arthur R. Outlaw Mobile Convention Center in Mobile, Alabama, 21 June 2007.
(SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
US President George W. Bush (2R) waves as he stands with First Lady Laura Bush (R), Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions (2L) and his wife Mary (L) after a Republican fundraiser for Sessions at the Arthur R. Outlaw Mobile Convention Center in Mobile, Alabama, 21 June 2007.
(SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
Baghdad, IRAQ: US Senators Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, (L) and Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, speak to the media after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad, 28 April 2007. Maliki told a delegation of visiting US lawmakers today that foreign powers should not try to influence the Iraqi political process. He also resisted calls for his Shiite-led government to rehabilitate former members of ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime. Maliki met a group of US congressmen shortly after their chamber voted for a law calling for a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.
(KHALID MOHAMMED/AFP/Getty Images)
U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL, (C) speaks with the media as (L-R) U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA), U.S. Representative David Dreier (R-CA) and U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) listen at the White House after participating in a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush on March 16, 2006 in Washington, DC. Senators from various states, including U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), participated in a line item veto legislation meeting.
(Photo by Dennis Brack-Pool/Getty Images)
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., during a news conference after the Senate took a step Wednesday toward the ‘security first’ approach to immigration control promoted in the House, paving the way for action on legislation that would require construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing along segments of the U.S. border with Mexico. Despite Democratic charges that Republicans were moving the bill (HR 6061) to score political points seven weeks before Election Day, the Senate voted 94-0 to limit debate on a motion to proceed to formal consideration of the measure. The bill (HR 6061), which would also authorize a ‘virtual fence’ of sensors, cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles and other surveillance technology along the entire southwest border, was passed by the House last week. Three more targeted border security and internal immigration enforcement measures are set for House action, possibly as early as Thursday. Frist supported an earlier Senate comprehensive bill that would offer a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants. Sessions did not; he considers that aspect of the bill amnesty.
(Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)
U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (L), speaks with U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) during a Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Alberto R. Gonzales January 6, 2005 in Washington, DC. U.S. President George W. Bush has nominated Gonzales to be the U.S. Attorney General.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building.
(Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., talk in the Ohio Clock Corridor during the election meeting for Senate Republican leadership.
(Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)
Sen. Jeff Sessions at a hearing to examine ‘President Clinton’s Eleventh Hour Pardons.’
(Photo By Tom Williams/Roll Call/Getty Images)
Up Next
See Gallery
Horowitz was sworn into his post in 2012 during the Obama administration, and previously served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission under Republican President George W. Bush.
A still non-public report by Horowitz accusing former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe of lack of candor was used recently as the basis for Sessions to fire McCabe on March 16, less than two days before he was set to retire.
Despite Trump’s prior concerns with letting Horowitz investigate the alleged surveillance abuses outlined by Republicans, the president cheered the decision to terminate McCabe, calling it on Twitter a “great day for Democracy.” (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; editing by James Dalgleish and David Gregorio)
In the midst of that turmoil, Dr. Jackson, 50, who was named to his current position by President Barack Obama in 2013, has grown close with Mr. Trump, a commander in chief who enjoys familiar faces in his orbit and often rewards them with new roles.
“I’ve found no reason whatsoever to think the president has any issues whatsoever with his thought processes,” Dr. Jackson said.
His policy views are all but unknown, though, especially on Capitol Hill, where the Senate will decide whether he is up to leading the department. Senators, including Johnny Isakson of Georgia, the chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, issued cautious statements on Wednesday praising Dr. Shulkin and indicating that they would need to get to know the nominee.
PhotoDr. Ronny L. Jackson, the White House physician, discussed the results of President Trump’s medical exam in January. Credit
Doug Mills/The New York Times
That tone was echoed by mainstream veterans groups like Disabled American Veterans and the American Legion, who hold considerable sway in Washington, and who warned of a potential leadership vacuum at the department.
Privately, several White House aides acknowledged that Dr. Jackson’s lack of managerial experience could be problematic and said that once again the president’s interest in his personal bond with someone was more significant than their curriculum vitae.
In a Twitter post on Wednesday announcing the changes, Mr. Trump called Dr. Jackson “highly respected” and thanked Dr. Shulkin for “service to our country and to our great veterans.”
I am pleased to announce that I intend to nominate highly respected Admiral Ronny L. Jackson, MD, as the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs….
Mr. Trump said that Robert Wilkie, the under secretary for defense personnel and readiness at the Defense Department, would serve as acting secretary in the meantime, bypassing the department’s deputy secretary, Thomas G. Bowman.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The White House did not respond to a request asking who would replace Dr. Jackson.
Those successes and his easy grasp of complicated policy issues won Dr. Shulkin deep support on Capitol Hill and among veterans groups. And Mr. Trump, who made veterans issues and overhauling the scandal-ridden department a focal point of his campaign, showered Dr. Shulkin with praise. At a bill-signing ceremony in June, the president teased that the secretary need never worry about hearing his “Apprentice”-era catchphrase, “You’re fired.”
“We’ll never have to use those words on our David,” Mr. Trump said. “We will never use those words on you, that’s for sure.”
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
View all New York Times newsletters.
See Sample
Manage Email Preferences
Not you?
Privacy Policy
Opt out or contact us anytime
But in recent months, a group of conservative Trump administration appointees at the White House and the department began to break with the secretary and plot his ouster. At issue was how far and how fast to privatize health care for veterans, a long-sought goal for conservatives like the Koch brothers.
The officials — who included Dr. Shulkin’s press secretary and assistant secretary for communications, along with a top White House domestic policy aide — came to consider Dr. Shulkin and his top deputy as obstacles.
The secretary’s troubles only grew when what had been an internal power struggle burst into the open in February, after the department’s inspector general issued a scathing report on a trip Dr. Shulkin took last year to Britain and Denmark. The report, describing what it called “serious derelictions,” found the secretary had spent much of the trip sightseeing and had improperly accepted Wimbledon tickets as a gift.
Critics of the secretary seized on the report to try to hasten his removal. Dr. Shulkin, fearing a coup, went public with a warning about officials “trying to undermine the department from within” and cut off those he saw as disloyal. The efforts backfired. At the White House, senior officials came to believe that Dr. Shulkin had misled them about the contents of the report. And the secretary’s public declarations only further aggravated top officials, who felt Dr. Shulkin had gone too far in commenting on internal politics with news outlets and had opened the administration to sharp criticism over his trip to Europe, which the report said cost more than $122,000.
But as recently as early March, after meetings with John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, Dr. Shulkin publicly claimed victory, signaling that he had the White House’s support to remove officials opposing him.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The victory was short-lived. Before long, Dr. Shulkin sharply curtailed his public profile, cutting off communications with reporters and isolating himself from top deputies he viewed as disloyal. People who have spoken with the secretary in recent days said he was determined to keep his post, even as it became increasingly clear his time was up. He was set to meet with leaders from the nation’s largest veterans groups on Thursday.
Despite his problems with the White House, Dr. Shulkin remained overwhelmingly popular on Capitol Hill, where the Senate unanimously confirmed him last year, and among the veterans groups that have traditionally held outsize influence in Washington. In recent weeks, leaders from both parties publicly and privately signaled their support, even as rumors of his replacement appeared in news reports.
But Mr. Trump had had enough. He began to discuss successors in recent weeks, even considering Energy Secretary Rick Perry as a possibility. He told friends last weekend that he would fire Dr. Shulkin, it was just a question of when.
Dr. Shulkin had made a preliminary inquiry about having Dr. Jackson for an under secretary role last year, and the president spoke with him briefly about it then, one senior administration official said. But it went nowhere at the time.
By Monday, Mr. Trump had started animatedly talking with a handful of people about the idea of Dr. Jackson’s replacing Dr. Shulkin, people familiar with the discussions said. Still, he did not tell many advisers of his plan until soon before it was announced.
A Navy doctor since 1995, Dr. Jackson deployed as an emergency medicine physician to Taqaddum, Iraq, during the Iraq war. He has served as a member of the White House medical unit since 2006 and as its lead physician since 2013, overseeing Mr. Obama’s physicals.
Dr. Jackson had told several people that he planned to retire from Washington after Mr. Obama left office. But Mr. Trump, whose previous personal physician made headlines with a series of unauthorized news interviews about his patient, asked Dr. Jackson to stay on. Mr. Trump, who goes to great lengths to hide details of his personal life, quickly came to trust Dr. Jackson, referring to him warmly as “Doc” around the White House.
Democrats, moderate Republicans and mainline veterans groups have all feared that Dr. Shulkin’s departure could clear the way for a more aggressive push for government-subsidized private care at the department.
“Every major veterans’ organization in this country vigorously opposes the privatization of the V.A.,” Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont and a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said in a statement. “I stand with them. Our job is to strengthen the V.A. in order to provide high-quality care to our veterans, not dismember it.”
Correction: March 28, 2018
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the rank of Dr. Ronny L. Jackson. He is a rear admiral, not an admiral.
The grandmother of an unarmed black man killed by Sacramento police is calling for changes in the way police confront suspects. Sequita Thompson said Monday police didn’t need to shoot and kill 22-year-old Stephon Clark in a darkened backyard. (March 26) AP
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Protesters disrupted a meeting Tuesday of the Sacramento City Council held to accommodate residents wanting to discuss the shooting death of an unarmed black man by police.
Stephon Clark, 22, was fatally shot by police March 18 in his grandmother’s backyard. Officers said they initially thought he had a gun. He was holding a cellphone.
At Tuesday’s packed council meeting, Clark’s brother Stevante Clark jumped on the dais and demanded to speak, saying he didn’t think the council would make meaningful changes as a result of his brother’s death.
The council adjourned for roughly 15 minutes as a result of the disruption.
Protesters outside of City Hall forced their way into the atrium as metal detectors fell down.
Protesters later moved to Golden 1 Center, blocking the entrances to the arena. The Sacramento Kings were scheduled to play the Dallas Mavericks on Tuesday night.
The Kings released a statement saying the game would be delayed and the arena entrances were “temporarily closed.”
“Stand-by for further instructions as we coordinate safe entry to the building. We apologize for the inconvenience,” the statement said.
The game started a few minutes after the scheduled time,but the 17,600-seat arena was sparsely populated.
Earlier Tuesday, the California attorney general’s office said it is joining an investigation into the fatal shooting to provide independent oversight.
Sacramento Police Chief Daniel Hahn announced the partnership Tuesday alongside Attorney General Xavier Becerra. He said he hopes it will build “faith and confidence” in the investigation.
Stephon Clark’s family said they are skeptical that there will be a proper investigation – even with the state attorney general involved. Clark’s uncle, Curtis Gordon, says the family will wait to see what results. He says it’s all talk at this point.
At $299 (and $50 to $99 more if you want to get a compatiblestylus), schools might not have the budget to get both a tablet and a traditional laptop for students. With the financial constraints of most public schools, they probably have to pick one of the two. And while Apple’s case for the iPad as an educational tool is a strong one, laptops remain a more sensible option for most students. Which begs the question: Why hasn’t Apple made a low-cost Macbook for education instead?
Apple is likely making a push into schools in an attempt to recapture some of its glory days in the education sector. Apple famously made a deal in 1978 with the Minnesota Education Computing Consortium (MECC) to supply 500 computers to schools, and by 1982, MECC was the largest seller of Apple computers in the country. Steve Jobs told Computerworld in a 1985 interview that “one of the things that built the Apple II was schools buying Apple IIs.”
It used to be that Apple computers were commonplace in learning institutions, with Macintoshes and eMacs present in schools and universities across the country throughout the 1980s and early 2000s. Much of that was due to efforts such as large-scale computer donations, deals with top colleges, and making eMacs (and other models) a little less capable and more affordable than the rest of Apple’s consumer lineup.
In the mid-2000s, Apple did make a low-cost Macbook for schools… sort of. It was the basic polycarbonate Macbook, and while it was initially intended for consumer audiences, it was still marketed and sold in schools as a low-cost alternative. When they were taken off the retail shelf in 2011, Apple still sold them exclusively to educational institutions for around $900 per machine.
In recent years, however, things have changed. According to a recent survey by FutureSource Consulting, Apple has fallen to a distant third behind Google Chromebooks and Windows PCs in the education market. That’s because Chromebooks and PCs are more affordable. In an effort to make its products sleeker and faster, Apple’s done away with most of its entry-level products. The cheapest Macbook right now, for example, is $1,300, which is definitely not a budget laptop by any stretch of the imagination.
So why can’t Apple make a cheap laptop? “Theoretically Apple could do this, although the first step they would have to take is to reduce their profit margin,” said analyst Rhoda Alexander from IHS Markit. “However, that profit margin is a key component of Apple’s success, allowing Apple to constantly reinvest in the brand, driving innovation and RD across hardware, software and content development.”
Apple could also make cheaper laptops with plastic cases and cheaper CPUs, but making mass quantities of cheap hardware doesn’t seem to be part of Apple’s current strategy. “There are other compromises they could make at the design and component level to reduce their cost, if their end goal was to drive unit volume,” continued Alexander, stating that Apple likely wants to maintain a “premiere standard across the entire brand line.”
Which seems to be why Apple seems to be so keen on iPads as part of its education strategy. Not only are the tablets portable, lightweight and easy to use, they’re also part of Apple’s “post-PC” narrative, where most tasks only need a touchscreen and an accessory or two.
In a way, it makes sense. When Engadget tried replacing a laptop with an iPad Pro for a week, we found it to be surprisingly effective, letting us do most tasks with ease. No, it didn’t quite replace a laptop for us — batch-resize images was a struggle, for example — but it was close. And for kids, that might be good enough.
The fact that so many parents already use iPads with their kids should not be underestimated. After all, this is a device that many children are already familiar with, and moving from what you have at home and bringing the experience to school makes sense. While laptops and keyboards are what we as adults are familiar with, children who grow up with hand-me-down tablets will be more adept with touchscreens. Combined with just how many educational apps there are available on the iPad, it’s no surprise that Apple sees the iPad as key to getting back into classrooms.
Yet, the cost is a barrier. Given the choice between a $300 iPad and Chromebooks that start at $150, it’ll be hard for schools to pick the former over the latter. Sure, one has sleek and powerful apps, but the other has a keyboard, with all the important functionality, for a cheaper price.
Apple could make a student-only iPad or Macbook just for the educational market, perhaps constructed out of a durable polycarbonate. As long as there was enough performance and power to properly run any and all educational apps as well as Apple’s own productivity tools without hiccups. It might not be as shiny and glossy as the iPad announced today or the current Macbook line, but it wouldn’t need to be.
But the reality is, we probably won’t see anything like that anytime soon. At the end of the day, Apple has stuck to its guns as a purveyor of high-end electronics. It would be very unlike Apple to suddenly produce cheaper budget versions of its hardware just to keep up with its rivals (the iPhone 5cdidn’t last long, remember). Which is unfortunate, because that might be what it needs to do in order to convince more schools to switch to iPad.
Catch up on all of the news from Apple’s education event right here!
President Emmanuel Macron of France lashed out at the approach on Tuesday, saying he was frustrated by the seemingly coercive negotiation tactics coming from Washington.
“We talk about everything, in principle, with a friendly country that respects the rules of the W.T.O.,” Mr. Macron said. “We talk about nothing, in principle, when it is with a gun to our head.”
The implications in the United States will depend on how well Mr. Trump and his allies are able to sell the deal’s direct benefits to voters in midterm elections in the fall. They did not succeed in doing so in a recent special election in Pennsylvania, where a Democrat won in a district that should have been especially receptive to Mr. Trump’s argument about trade and tariffs.
Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, said the president’s political team “must get on the ground and make sure working people understand the direct economic benefits that come from these measures — get it from being academic to simple.”
The deal with South Korea, he said, “is a big victory resulting from the president’s smart tariff policies.”
The agreement is also a victory for a president whose most ardent campaign supporters were animated in part by a promise that Mr. Trump would fight for them against an international free-trade establishment that they believe had robbed them of jobs and depressed their wages.
As a candidate, Mr. Trump had repeatedly threatened to withdraw from trade deals he said were unfair to the United States and its workers — or even rip them up. Even as recently as last September, associates of the president made it clear that he was willing to withdraw from trade negotiations with South Korea if he thought the result would be unfair.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
View all New York Times newsletters.
See Sample
Manage Email Preferences
Not you?
Privacy Policy
Opt out or contact us anytime
Mr. Trump has also made clear his disdain for the multicountry trade agreements that the United States has long championed. One of his first moves as president was to pull out of what was then the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement that President Barack Obama had helped solidify.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
On Tuesday, supporters of Mr. Trump’s protectionist approach to trade cheered the new pact as a victory for American workers and the dawn of a new era in globalization.
“The agreement with South Korea to better level the playing field on steel and autos is an encouraging sign that the administration’s trade strategy is achieving results,” said Scott N. Paul, the president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. “We believe the deal’s steel provision will be as effective as a tariff in achieving the goals of strengthening our domestic industry and ensuring it can supply America’s security needs.”
Through the agreement, South Korea — the third-biggest exporter of steel to the United States in 2016 — is permanently exempt from the White House’s global tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports. In return, South Korea agreed to adhere to a quota of 2.68 million tons of steel exports to the United States a year, which it said was roughly equivalent to 70 percent of its annual average sent to the United States from 2015 to 2017.
The deal also doubles the number of vehicles the United States can export to South Korea without meeting local safety requirements to 50,000 per manufacturer. However, trade experts said that American companies had not come close to meeting their existing quota last year, and that American carmakers had not done enough to tailor their products for South Korean consumers, who prefer smaller vehicles. The revised agreement does ease environmental regulations that American carmakers face when selling vehicles in South Korea and makes American standards for auto parts compliant with South Korean regulations.
Importantly for the Trump administration, the agreement extends tariffs on imported South Korean trucks by 20 years to 2041. Those tariffs were set to phase out in 2021, which officials said would have harmed American truck makers.
The deal will also establish a side agreement between the United States and South Korea that is intended to deter “competitive devaluation” of both countries’ currencies — which can artificially lower the cost of imports bought by consumers — and to create more transparency on issues of monetary policy. Administration officials suggested that this new type of arrangement was likely to be replicated in other trade deals, though they acknowledged that it was not enforceable.
Senior White House officials trumpeted the addition of the currency provision to the negotiations, which would seek to prevent South Korea from reducing the value of its currency to make its goods cheaper abroad and export more to the United States. In a report published in October, the Treasury Department declined to label South Korea a currency manipulator, but placed it on a “monitoring list” for its currency practices and large trade surplus with the United States.
However, the effect of the currency agreement may be mostly symbolic, since it was signed in a side deal to the pact to avoid a lengthy legislative approval process. Unlike other provisions of the official agreement, the currency provision is not enforceable through panels that typically settle disputes, or through officially sanctioned retaliation, the usual method for policing trade deals.
The Obama administration had fought for a similar currency provision to be included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
On automobiles, the biggest source of trade tensions between the countries, the negotiation delivered modest victories that were likely to be welcomed by American carmakers who have long sought to sell more cars in South Korea. It also smoothed customs and regulatory procedures that American businesses say have made it harder to sell goods in the country.
SANTA ANA, Calif.—Orange County officials on Tuesday voted to condemn parts of California’s approach to immigration, aligning themselves with the Trump administration as the state increasingly stakes out an oppositional role.
At a packed public hearing, the county’s board of supervisors—all Republicans—also voted to support a federal lawsuit against California’s so-called sanctuary state law, which strictly limits when and how local authorities can cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
