Clinton

WASHINGTON — President Trump isn’t curtailing travel. He’s not avoiding golf or making do with a skeleton staff in the West Wing. Even hamburgers served at the White House aren’t from McDonalds, this time.

In shutdowns past — including during Trump’s first term — presidents normally scaled back their schedules. With staffers deemed “non-essential” sent home, the White House often sought to appear sympathetic to Americans affected by disruptions to healthcare, veterans benefits and other key services.

The current one has left around 750,000 federal employees furloughed and others working without pay. Funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is lapsing after Friday.

Nonetheless, it’s been mostly business as usual for Trump over the last 29 days.

“It’s like that country song: ‘Sometimes falling feels like flying for a little while,’” said Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to President Clinton, who presided over two shutdowns between 1995 and 1996. “They seem to be like, ‘So far, so good, man.’ ”

Ballroom, golf and trips

Trump was on a six-day swing through Asia, after a recent, whirlwind Middle East visit. He hosted a White House fundraiser for major donors to his $300-million ballroom that has seen construction crews tear down the East Wing, and held another fundraiser at his Florida estate.

Members of the Cabinet have similarly hit the road. Vice President JD Vance traveled to Israel, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem went to Oregon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth toured Topgun, the U.S. Navy’s elite fighter weapons school in Nevada.

Only 32% of staff in the Executive Office of the President were set to be furloughed during the current shutdown, according to a White House budget office contingency report. That’s down from 61% during the last shutdown in 2018-19, in Trump’s first term. About half of the Executive Mansion’s team that includes housekeepers, ushers, valets and butlers are currently working. Last time, more than 70% were furloughed.

It’s often been hard to tell a shutdown is happening with so many staffers remaining at their desks.

“I don’t even know if they’re supposed to be working, but they wouldn’t miss a day,” Trump said during an event last week.

It’s a departure from Trump’s first term, when he cut out golf and canceled a planned trip to Florida for Christmas during the 2018 shutdown, which stretched into the new year. He made a surprise visit to troops in Iraq then, but nixed plans to go to the Swiss Alps for the World Economic Forum.

When hosting Clemson University football players celebrating their NCAA football championship, Trump brought in burgers and fries from McDonald’s and Domino’s pizza because of White House staff furloughs.

This time, the president had Republican senators over for a lunch that featured burgers, too. But staff made them. “They do great food at the White House,” Trump said.

‘A smarter approach’

Some say barreling ahead like there’s no shutdown has some political advantages for Trump, allowing him to look presidential while avoiding congressional bickering.

“It’s a much smarter approach,” said Marc Short, chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence.

In Trump’s first-term shutdown, he rejected a congressional compromise to force the government to close — an attempt to win funding to wall off the U.S.-Mexico border. Then, he named Pence as lead negotiator to end the shutdown while involving his son-in-law Jared Kushner — creating the visual of them having to go to Capitol Hill.

“The first go-around, he was pretty clear with cameras rolling: He said he wanted the shutdown. He claimed ownership,” Short said. This time? “The White House has been clear about not owning it.”

Back in 1995, Begala recalled talking strategy with Clinton during a sweaty summer run at Fort McNair in Washington, and telling the president that Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his party “think they can roll you,” forcing cuts to Medicare by threatening a shutdown.

Clinton responded: “‘My favorite movie’s ‘High Noon,’ ” Begala recalled, meaning the western in which a marshal stands up to outlaws. ”They do that — then I just have a Gary Cooper, ‘High Noon’ moment. That’s easy.”

When Gingrich later came to the White House to negotiate, Begala said Clinton wouldn’t budge, even though some advisors urged him to cut a deal. Voters ultimately blamed congressional Republicans more than the White House for the government closing, and Clinton was easily reelected in 1996.

“That could have really gone badly for Clinton,” Begala said. “But he did understand that standing strong, and having a Gary Cooper moment, would be really good for him.”

Trump could probably find a way to end the current shutdown if he wanted to prioritize it, said Leon Panetta, who worked to end past government closures as Clinton’s chief of staff. But Trump’s “attention is focused on everything but sitting down and getting both parties together to resolve this issue,” Panetta said.

‘Continuing to work night and day’

During the 16-day government shutdown of 2013, President Obama scrapped a four-country Asia trip and skipped the Congressional Hispanic Caucus gala. His schedule featured events meant to show the shutdown’s effects, including visiting a Maryland construction firm that benefited from the kind of federal loans jeopardized with the government shuttered.

In 2019, as that shutdown dragged on, Trump’s White House officials acknowledged feeling pressure to end it. This time, the administration’s approach has been to blame the Democrats, while signaling that it’s prepared to wait — even warning of coming travel delays during the Thanksgiving holidays.

“President Trump is continuing to work night and day on behalf of American people,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. “The entire administration, including the president, will continue highlighting the workers and families who are suffering because of the Democrats’ decision to shut down the government.”

Bill Daley, a White House chief of staff to Obama before the 2013 shutdown, said Trump isn’t acting like he’s feeling political heat to reopen the government, even before next Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey — both home to sizable federal workforces.

“My guess is, he thinks it helps him,” Daley said, “until — and I don’t know if it will — the bottom falls out.”

Democrats are demanding an extension of expiring tax credits that have helped millions of people afford health insurance, while Republicans say they won’t negotiate until the government is reopened.

Trump has said the shutdown must end, but also used it to cut federal positions and target programs Democrats favor, while redirecting funds to his own priorities — like covering military paychecks. The president has even said of closed museums, “We should probably just open them.”

Americans, meanwhile, are divided on who’s to blame.

Roughly 6 in 10 say Trump and congressional Republicans have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of responsibility for the shutdown, while 54% say the same about Democrats in Congress, according to a recent poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Mike McCurry, a White House press secretary under Clinton, said Democrats have yet to settle on a clear shutdown message that has resonated. Trump has the presidency to deliver his take, but McCurry noted he has been “mercurial.”

“It is not likely we’re going to have clear winners or losers after this,” McCurry said. “It’s going to be a bit of a muddle.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Betty Ford reportedly said that if the White House West Wing is the “mind” of the nation, then the East Wing — the traditional power center for first ladies — is the “heart.”

That “heart” beat for more than 100 years as first ladies and their teams worked from their East Wing offices on everything from stopping drug abuse and boosting literacy to beautifying and preserving the White House itself. It’s where they planned White House state dinners and brainstormed the elaborate themes that are a feature of the U.S. holiday season.

That history came to an end after wrecking crews tore down the wing’s two stories of offices and reception rooms this month. Gone is an in-house movie theater, as well as a covered walkway to the White House captured in so many photos over the years. An East Wing garden that was dedicated to Jacqueline Kennedy was uprooted, photographs show.

President Trump ordered the demolition as part of his still-to-be approved plan to build a $300-million ballroom.

The Republican former real estate developer has long been fixated on building a big White House ballroom. In 2010, he called a top advisor to then-President Obama and offered to build one. Trump made no secret of his distaste for the practice of hosting elegant White House state dinners underneath tents on the South Lawn. The Obama White House did not follow up on his request.

Now Trump, in his second term, is moving quickly to see his wish for what he calls a “great legacy project” become reality. He has tried to justify the East Wing tear-down and his ballroom plans by noting that some of his predecessors also added to the White House over the years.

First ladies and their staffs witnessed history in the East Wing, a “place of purpose and service,” said Anita McBride, who worked there as chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush.

“Tearing down those walls doesn’t diminish the significance of the work we accomplished there,” McBride told the Associated Press.

McBride said she supports a ballroom addition because the “large and expensive tent option” that has been used when guest lists stretched longer than could be comfortably accommodated inside the White House “was not sustainable.” Tents damage the lawn and require additional infrastructure to be brought in, such as outdoor bathrooms and trolleys to move people around, especially in bad weather, she said.

Others feel differently.

Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, who was policy director for First Lady Michelle Obama, said the demolition was a “symbolic blow” to the East Wing’s legacy as a place where women made history.

“The East Wing was this physical space that had seen the role of the first lady evolve from a social hostess into a powerful advocate on a range of issues,” she said in an interview.

Here’s a look at some of the history that came out of the East Wing and the first ladies who spent time there:

Rosalynn Carter

She was the first first lady to have her own office in the East Wing. Most first ladies before Carter had worked out of the private living quarters on the second or third floor of the residence. Carter wanted a place where she could separate work and home.

“I always need a place to go that is private, where I don’t have to dress and don’t have to put on makeup,” she wrote in her memoir. “The offices of the staff of the first lady were always in the East Wing, and it seemed a perfect place for my office too.”

In her memoir, Carter wrote about her favorite route to her office in winter months. She walked through the basement, past laundry rooms and workshops and the bomb shelter kept for the president and his staff. The thermostats in the residence above had been turned down low because of President Carter’s energy conservation program, making the East Wing so cold that she was forced to wear long underwear.

The subterranean passageway shown to her by a residence staffer provided some relief. “With Jimmy’s energy conservation program, it was the only really warm place in the White House, with large steam pipes running overhead,” the first lady wrote.

Nancy Reagan

Photos from the East Wing in the early 1980s show the first lady meeting with staff, including her press secretary, Sheila Tate. For a generation of Americans, Nancy Reagan was most closely associated with a single phrase, “Just Say No,” for the anti-drug abuse program she made a hallmark of her White House tenure.

As Reagan once recalled, the idea for the campaign emerged during a 1982 visit with schoolchildren in Oakland. “A little girl raised her hand and said, ‘Mrs. Reagan, what do you do if somebody offers you drugs?’ And I said, ‘Well, you just say no.’ And there it was born.”

Hillary Clinton

Clinton bucked history by becoming the first first lady to insist that her office be in the West Wing, not the East Wing. In her memoir, Clinton wrote that she wanted her staff to be “integrated physically” with the president’s team. The first lady’s office relocated to what is now the Eisenhower Executive Office Building while Clinton was assigned an office on the second floor of the West Wing.

“This was another unprecedented event in White House history and quickly became fodder for late-night comedians and political pundits,” Clinton later wrote.

Laura Bush

Bush wrote in her memoir about what it was like at the White House after the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of her staff members, in their 20s, “kicked off their high heels and fled from the East Wing” after they were told to “run for their lives” when reports suggested the White House was a target, she wrote.

“Now they were being asked to come back to work in a building that everyone considered a target and for a presidency and a country that would be at war.”

Michelle Obama

Obama was the first Black woman to serve as first lady, becoming a global role model and style icon who advocated for improved child nutrition through her “Let’s Move” initiative. She and her staff in the East Wing also worked to support military families and promote higher education for girls in developing countries.

Photos from the time show Obama typing on a laptop during an online chat about school nutrition and the White House garden she created.

Melania Trump

Trump pushed the boundaries of serving as first lady by not living at the White House during the opening months of President Trump’s first term. She stayed in New York with their then-school-age son, Barron, so he wouldn’t have to switch schools midyear. When she eventually moved to the White House, she and her East Wing aides launched an initiative called “Be Best,” focused on child well-being, opioid abuse and online safety.

Jill Biden

Biden was the first first lady to continue a career outside the White House. The longtime community college English professor taught twice a week while serving as first lady. But in her East Wing work, she was an advocate for military families; her late father and her late son Beau served in the military. Biden also advocated for research into a cure for cancer and secured millions of dollars in federal funding for research into women’s health.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Chelsea Clinton is already running for a second term — as a mom!

“Next summer, Charlotte is going to be a big sister! Feeling very blessed & grateful this holiday season,” the former first daughter said Monday on Twitter. She and husband Marc Mezvinsky had their first child, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, in late September 2014.

The announcement featured a picture of Charlotte eyeballing a book titled “Big Sisters Are the Best.” (Perhaps the little one’s next read will be her mom’s book “It’s Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going”? OK, we’ll give her some time …)

Grandparents Bill and Hillary Clinton were quick to jump in with official congratulations.

Follow Christie D’Zurilla on Twitter @theCDZ and Google+. Follow the Ministry of Gossip on Twitter @LATcelebs.

Follow Christie D’Zurilla on Twitter @theCDZ and Google+. Follow the Ministry of Gossip on Twitter @LATcelebs.

WASHINGTON — A man whose convictions for storming the U.S. Capitol were erased by President Trump’s mass pardons has been arrested on a charge that he threatened to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Christopher P. Moynihan is accused of sending a text message on Friday noting that Jeffries, a New York Democrat, would be making a speech in New York City this week.

“I cannot allow this terrorist to live,” Moynihan wrote, according to a report by a state police investigator. Moynihan also wrote that Jeffries “must be eliminated” and texted, “I will kill him for the future,” the police report says.

Moynihan, of Clinton, N.Y., is charged with a felony count of making a terroristic threat. It was unclear if he had an attorney representing him in the case, and efforts to contact him and his parents by email and phone were unsuccessful.

Moynihan, 34, was sentenced to 21 months in prison for joining a mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. In January, he was among hundreds of convicted Capitol rioters who received a pardon from Trump on the Republican president’s first day back in the White House.

Jeffries thanked investigators “for their swift and decisive action to apprehend a dangerous individual who made a credible death threat against me with every intention to carry it out.”

“Unfortunately, our brave men and women in law enforcement are being forced to spend their time keeping our communities safe from these violent individuals who should never have been pardoned,” Jeffries said in a statement.

House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about the case during a news conference on Tuesday and said he did not know any details of the threat against Jeffries.

“We denounce violence from anybody, anytime. Those people should be arrested and tried,” said Johnson, a Louisiana Republican.

The New York State Police said they were notified of the threat by an FBI task force on Saturday. Moynihan was arraigned on Sunday in a local court in New York’s Dutchess County. He is due back in the Town of Clinton Court on Thursday.

Dutchess County Dist. Atty. Anthony Parisi said his office is reviewing the case “for legal and factual sufficiency.”

“Threats made against elected officials and members of the public will not be tolerated,” Parisi said in a statement on Tuesday.

On Jan. 6, Moynihan breached police barricades before entering the Capitol through the Rotunda door. He entered the Senate chamber, rifled through a notebook on a senator’s desk and joined other rioters in shouting and chanting at the Senate dais, prosecutors said.

“Moynihan did not leave the Senate Chamber until he was forced out by police,” they wrote.

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper convicted Moynihan of a felony for obstructing the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress for certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Moynihan also pleaded guilty to five other riot-related counts.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — In his final hours as president, Bill Clinton on Saturday granted pardons to 140 Americans, including Patricia Hearst, an heiress kidnapped in the 1970s; his half-brother, Roger, who was convicted on drug charges; and Susan McDougal, who spent 18 months in jail rather than testify about the Clintons’ role in the Whitewater scandal.

Former Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros, ex-CIA Director John M. Deutch and former Arizona Gov. Fife Symington also received last-minute pardons.

But Clinton chose not to pardon financier Michael Milken, who pleaded guilty in 1990 to six counts of securities fraud. Milken’s request for a pardon had been championed by influential business and political figures.

In the end, strong opposition from law enforcement and the investment community–including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. attorney in New York–convinced the president that Milken did not deserve a pardon, according to a former administration official who asked not to be identified.

“A lot of influential people on Wall Street weighed in against the pardon,” the official said. “The press obsession with Milken and whether he was going to get a pardon was out of proportion.”

Milken, who heard of the decision early Saturday at his Encino home, is optimistic that one day he will be pardoned, said his spokesman, Geoffrey Moore.

“This man is never bitter,” Moore said. “He’s been through a lot worse than this. I’m sure he would have preferred another decision, but he never looks back.”

Ari Swiller, a spokesman for Ron Burkle, the Los Angeles grocery magnate who spearheaded Milken’s pardon efforts, would not comment on whether a campaign for a Milken pardon will continue. Burkle, who heads the Yucaipa Management Co., is a close friend of Clinton and one of his early campaign contributors.

“We don’t want to judge the process,” Burkle said. “On the good side, this has provided the opportunity for more people to know of Mike’s philanthropic efforts.”

The White House had been expected to announce its final pardons Friday, but Clinton was preoccupied with a more pressing issue–a deal with Whitewater independent counsel Robert W. Ray in which he acknowledged making false statements about his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. In return, Ray promised not to prosecute Clinton.

During his eight-year term, Clinton pardoned 395 people, about the same as President Reagan, and commuted the sentences of 61 prisoners. Former President Bush pardoned 74 people during his four-year term.

McDougal learned of her pardon while watching the inauguration on television with friends in Arkansas.

“I have carried this burden with me since I was convicted,” said McDougal, who has repeatedly proclaimed her innocence. “I never realized how heavy the burden was until today. Now all of that has gone away.”

Los Angeles attorney Mark Geragos, who defended McDougal, said her pardon was one of a handful that Clinton wanted to sleep on before making a final decision Saturday morning.

“Susan is a very polarizing figure, and [Clinton] didn’t want to give the perception that a deal was cut,” Geragos said. “This is the final vindication for her.”

As part of the pardon, McDougal also avoids repayment of about $300,000 in court-ordered restitution plus interest, Geragos said.

Kenneth W. Starr, the former independent counsel who charged McDougal with civil contempt, did not return phone calls Saturday.

The pardon for Hearst ends a saga that began in the 1970s, when the newspaper heiress was kidnapped by revolutionaries of the so-called Symbionese Liberation Army and then joined them as “Tania.” She served a prison term for bank robbery.

Former President Carter, who commuted Hearst’s prison sentence, and his wife, Rosalynn, were strong advocates of a pardon for her.

“The Carters weighed in, and the president took their advice seriously,” the former Clinton official said. “She’s reformed and deserves a chance to vote.”

But Sarah Jane Olson, a former SLA member who was captured in 1999 after being a fugitive for nearly 25 years, said Saturday that Hearst fabricated much of her account of the kidnapping.

“Just because Clinton pardoned Patty Hearst does not mean that her story is true,” said Olson, who is scheduled to face trial this spring for allegedly planting bombs under two police cars. “Money, access to power and friends in high places have once again–as with her earlier commutation–influenced presidential prerogative in favor of Patricia Hearst.” Hearst could not be reached for comment.

Symington, a Republican, was convicted in 1997 of bank and wire fraud stemming from his days as a Phoenix real estate developer. The conviction was later thrown out when an appeals court ruled that one of the jurors had been improperly dismissed.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles had been attempting to restore criminal charges against Symington.

“Obviously, that’s not going to happen now,” said Thom Mrozak, spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. He said prosecutors had no comment on the pardon.

Cisneros resigned in 1996 amid controversy over his statements to the FBI about paying “hush money” to a former mistress. Formerly head of Univision, he now is chairman of American CityVista, an affordable housing venture at Kaufman & Broad Home Corp..

Former CIA Director Deutch, who was accused of transferring classified information to his home computer, had been discussing a possible plea deal to settle his case.

Roger Clinton pleaded guilty in 1985 to conspiring to sell cocaine.

In addition to Milken, Clinton declined to grant pardons to Jonathan Jay Pollard, convicted of spying for Israel; Native American activist Leonard Peltier, convicted of killing two FBI agents in 1975; and Webster L. Hubbell, a former law partner of Hillary Rodham Clinton who was convicted in a Whitewater-related trial. He had not requested a pardon.

The ability to grant pardons is a uniquely presidential power designated by the Constitution.

The purpose of a pardon is to grant official forgiveness of a crime. It does not expunge a person’s criminal record, but it can have the effect, depending on the state in which the person lives, of restoring some of the civil rights that a criminal conviction takes away, such as the right to vote, to run for office and to carry a firearm.

Clinton also acted Saturday to commute the prison sentences of 36 Americans. Unlike a pardon, a commutation does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense but merely shortens the punishment.

Among those granted clemency were Peter MacDonald Sr., former leader of the Navajo Nation, who was imprisoned for his role in a 1989 riot that resulted in two deaths; and former Chicago-area Democratic Rep. Mel Reynolds, sent to prison for having sex with an underage campaign worker and for bank fraud.

*

Rosenblatt reported from Washington and Vrana from Los Angeles. Times staff writers Edmund Sanders and Alissa J. Rubin in Washington and Ann O’Neill and Richard Winton in Los Angeles contributing to this story.

WASHINGTON — The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey is only two pages and alleges he falsely testified to Congress in 2020 about authorizing someone to be an anonymous source in news stories.

That brevity belies a convoluted and contentious backstory. The events at the heart of the disputed testimony are among the most heavily scrutinized in the bureau’s history, generating internal and congressional investigations that have produced thousands of pages of records and transcripts.

Those investigations were focused on how Comey and his agents conducted high-stakes inquiries into whether Russia had unlawfully colluded with Republican Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

Here are some things to know about that period and how they fit into Comey’s indictment:

What are the allegations?

The indictment alleges that Comey made a false statement in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The single quote from the indictment appears to be from an interaction with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Prosecutors contend that Comey lied when he denied having authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source to the media, alleging he had done so by telling someone identified as “Person 3” in the indictment to speak to reporters.

“It’s such a bare-bones indictment,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor and now a defense attorney in private practice. “We do not know what the evidence is going to be” at trial, he said.

What did Comey say to Congress?

Wisenberg said the testimony in question appears to have come when Cruz was pressing Comey over the role that his deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, played in authorizing a leak to the Wall Street Journal for a story examining how the FBI handled an investigation into Clinton’s use of the private email server.

Cruz’s question was complicated, but it boiled down to pitting Comey against McCabe. The senator noted that Comey told Congress in 2017 he had not authorized anyone to speak to reporters. But Cruz asserted that McCabe had “publicly and repeatedly said he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it.”

“Who’s telling the truth?” Cruz asked.

Comey answered: “I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”

At that time, Comey had been put on the spot by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Comey was asked whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.”

Comey answered, “No.”

The indictment says Comey falsely stated that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports,” but Comey appears not to have used that phrasing during the 2020 hearing at issue, potentially complicating efforts to establish that he made a false statement.

What may have sparked the questions?

“Person 3” is not identified in the indictment, but appears to have been discussing an investigation related to Clinton, based on a clearer reference in a felony charge that grand jurors rejected. Comey figured in several inquiries into alleged leaks in the Clinton investigation, all of which generated extensive paper trails.

One involved McCabe and the Journal story. McCabe told the Justice Department’s inspector general that he had authorized a subordinate to talk to the Journal reporter and had told Comey about that interaction after the fact.

It’s unlikely the indictment is focused on that episode because McCabe never told investigators that Comey had authorized him to talk to the media, only that the FBI director was aware that McCabe had done so.

Two other leak investigations involved a friend of Comey’s who served for a time as a paid government advisor to the director. That advisor, Daniel Richman, has told investigators he spoke to the media to help shape perceptions of the embattled FBI chief.

Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, was interviewed by FBI agents in 2019 about leaks to the media that concerned the bureau’s investigation into Clinton. Richman said Comey had never authorized him to speak to the media about the Clinton investigation but he acknowledged Comey was aware that he sometimes engaged with reporters.

Comey has acknowledged using Richman as a conduit to the media in another matter. After Comey was fired by Trump in 2017, he gave Richman a memo that detailed his interactions with the president. Comey later testified to Congress that he had authorized Richman to disclose the contents of the memo to journalists with the hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel who might investigate Trump.

How did we get here?

Trump and Comey have been engaged in a long-running feud. Trump blames Comey for having started an investigation into Russia’s election meddling on behalf of Trump’s 2016 campaign that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller. Mueller spent the better part of two years investigating whether Trump’s campaign illegally colluded with the Kremlin.

In the end, Mueller uncovered no evidence that Trump or his associates criminally colluded with Russia, but found that they had welcomed Moscow’s assistance and that Trump had obstructed justice during the investigation. Those findings were largely adopted by bipartisan congressional reports on the matter.

Trump, who was convicted of felony fraud last year, has long vented about the “Russia hoax,” which shadowed and defined the early years of his first term. He has spent the ensuing years bashing Comey and saying he should be charged with treason.

Just days before the indictment, Trump publicly urged his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to act against Comey and two other perceived Trump enemies: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump posted on social media last week. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW.”

Within hours of the indictment being returned, Trump turned again to social media to gloat: “JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey.”

Comey has remained resolute in his defense, while criticizing Trump on a host of matters. In a 2018 memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey compared Trump to a mafia don and said he was unethical and “untethered to truth.”

Like Trump, Comey took to social media after his indictment.

“My family and I have known for years there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump,” he said. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So, let’s have a trial.”

Tau writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

“It feels amazing,” said the Liverpool-born midfielder afterwards. “It takes the pressure off a little bit. Now I can get flowing into the season.

“The main thing for me was getting on to the pitch, making those connections with the girls and getting stuck in.

“I really enjoyed it out there and I am really happy with my debut.”

When Clinton switched Manchester clubs just hours before the transfer window closed, she stated on Instagram, external that she and United “weren’t on the same page”.

“She looked happy when she came on and looked like she enjoyed the game,” said Chelsea goalkeeper Becky Spencer, who played with Clinton at Spurs during her loan spell during the 2023-24 campaign.

Clinton undoubtedly adds further depth to a stacked squad of players at new City manager Andree Jeglertz’s disposal.

“I’m so happy for her because she has been working very good since she’s been with the team and deserved to get minutes,” said the Swede.

“Grace is a great player with the ball, she is working on finding the ball in different spaces and engaging the backline.

“But she is also working very hard to fit into the group and the team, and how we play – that will take some time for her.

“She wanted to be on the ball, she’s playing with a lot of confidence so I’m happy for her.”

Reporting from Kissimmee, Fla.  — Campaigning for Hillary Clinton at a Florida baseball stadium, President Obama lamented Sunday that the nature of this year’s presidential race has become so negative that even “Saturday Night Live” this week couldn’t keep parodying it.

What bothered him most, the president said, was the way “stuff that’s not normal, people have been treating like it’s normal.”

He referred to how just days ago he encouraged people at one of his rallies to show respect for a Donald Trump supporter who came to protest the event.

But Trump claimed just hours later that Obama had yelled at the man.

“Didn’t just make it up, but said the exact opposite of what had happened, with impunity,” he said. “There was tape. There was a video…. He thought it was OK just to lie in front of all his supporters.

“That says something about how unacceptable behavior has become normal,” Obama added. “And that’s why he is uniquely unqualified to hold this job. The good news is, all of you are uniquely qualified to make sure that he doesn’t get the job!”

Obama also mocked Trump after a report that his own campaign apparently had taken away his access to Twitter, where Trump has been known to send insulting missives.

“If somebody can’t handle a Twitter account, they can’t handle the nuclear codes,” Obama said.

It was a typically chesty speech from the outgoing commander in chief as he not only stumps aggressively for Hillary Clinton to succeed him, but settles some scores with the Republicans who have tried to stifle his every move for eight years.

In his reelection campaign four years ago, Obama would talk somewhat optimistically — in retrospect, perhaps naively — about his view that Republicans who had opposed him in his first term would be more cooperative should he win a second.

Knowing he would not be on the ballot again, there was less political incentive to deny him policy victories, and perhaps political incentive to try to find common ground, he thought.

“The fever will break,” he would say back then.

“C’mon, man,” has become his head-shaking credo now.

Obama on Sunday again attacked Republicans who support Trump even though they hold private — and some even public — reservations about him. He also warned that electing a Republican Congress would lead to a continuation of the obstruction he’s faced.

“They’re suggesting they might impeach Hillary. They don’t know what for yet. But they’re thinking about it,” Obama said.

Gridlock, he continued, is not “some mysterious fog that descends on Washington,” or something equally the fault of Democrats and Republicans.

“You want some more endless gridlock, vote for Republicans. You want an America that can do better … then you need to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot,” he said.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has emerged as one of Obama’s favorite targets, an example of a Republican whose devotion to defeating Democrats sometimes supersedes his personal and policy convictions.

Rubio supports Trump now, Obama said, even though he called Trump a con artist while running against him for the GOP nomination.

“He tweeted, ‘Friends don’t let friends vote for con artists,’” Obama said. “Guess who just voted for Trump a few days ago? Marco Rubio.”

Rubio’s opponent, Rep. Patrick Murphy, appeared before Obama on Sunday.

“If you want a senator who will say anything, do anything, be anybody just to get elected, then that’s your guy,” Obama said of Rubio. “If you want a senator who will show up and work for you and tell you the truth, then vote for Patrick Murphy and give Hillary some help.”

Obama made just one stop Sunday here in Central Florida, a key swing area in the always-important battleground state. “We win this election if we win Florida,” Obama said. “If we win Florida, it’s a wrap.”

Monday he has three appearances scheduled, in Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. He will join Clinton at the latter.

[email protected]

For more 2016 campaign coverage, follow @mikememoli on Twitter

ALSO

FBI clears Clinton after round-the-clock review of new emails, Comey says

A complete list of the L.A. Times’ 2016 endorsements

Our final map has Clinton winning with 352 electoral votes. Compare your picks with ours

Manchester United and England midfielder Grace Clinton is closing in on a move to Manchester City before Thursday’s transfer deadline.

The 22-year-old has attracted interest from several clubs this summer with just a year remaining on her contract and no renewal agreed.

Local rivals City are in talks to reach a deal with United before 23:00 BST on Thursday, while England midfielder Jess Park is set to move the other way.

Park, 23, who was also part of England’s Euro 2025-winning squad, was set for a medical at Carrington on Wednesday evening.

United see Park as a high-quality addition and while the deals are separate, she is considered a strong replacement for Clinton.

United were keen to keep Clinton, but they would rather cash in on the England international and avoid losing her for free next year.

In previous seasons United lost striker Alessia Russo and goalkeeper Mary Earps after the expiry of their contracts following failed contract renewal negotiations.

Hillary Clinton has shared her grim prediction on the future of same-sex marriage in the US.

On 15 August, the former Secretary of State stopped by the Raging Moderates podcast to discuss some of the most “pressing challenges of our time”, including Donald Trump’s volatile presidency, the future of democracy in the US and the economy.

In addition to the aforementioned topics, Clinton shared her candid thoughts on the recent petition formally asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the Obergefell v. Hodges rulling.

In 2015, the landmark 5-4 decision legalised same sex marriage in all 50 states.

While some legal experts have expressed doubt that the Court will hear the case, Clinton didn’t share the same sentiment.

“American voters and, to some extent, the American media don’t understand how many years the Republicans have been working in order to get us to this point,” she explained.

“It took 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage. My prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion. They will send it back to the states.”

Clinton went on to encourage LGBTQIA+ couples to consider getting married in the meantime.

“I don’t think they’ll undo existing marriages, but I fear that they will undo the national right. And so fewer than half the states will recognise gay marriage,” she continued.

Elsewhere in her interview, the former First Lady and presidential candidate shed light on the Republican Party’s political game plan regarding the 2026 midterm elections.

“There are going to be real world consequences, but a lot of them are not likely to hit with the velocity and intensity until after the 2026 election. So they’re trying to set it up so that they can win that election and dump all of this other bad news on the American people,” she explained.

“And they’re doing state capture of capitalism. State capture of institutions. The courts are doing their best, but, you know, it’s a slow process. And the Supreme Court gave Trump a big victory when they say no nationwide injunctions to stop allegedly illegal activity.



“So, I think that in an election we have a better fighting chance, but we’re going to be fighting with maybe one or even two hands tied behind us if Texas does what it wants to do, if other states do what Trump tells them to do because they don’t want a fair fight. They don’t want to have a fight about the issues. They want to distract and divert attention away from all of their problems.”

As previously mentioned, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQIA+ couples – filed a petition in July, urging the US Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the filing, she described the ruling as being “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process” and further claimed that it forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

For more information about the petition and expert opinions on whether the Court will hear the case, click here.

On a tense, chaotic night, with the eyes of the nation trained on the Iowa caucuses, that state’s Democratic Party was counting on a new smartphone app to make everything go smoothly.

In 2016, for the first time, precinct chairs used a smartphone app built by Microsoft to relay results to party headquarters, enabling faster reporting than communicating via telephone hotline. This year, with the state party promising to disclose more granular data than in the past, the job of coding the app went to a fledgling tech firm run by veterans of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

It turned out to be a crushing failure.

Throughout the long night, precinct chairs found themselves unable to get the app to work. Many never figured out how to download or install it in the first place. Those who tried to report their results via a backup phone line wound up on hold, sometimes for more than an hour.

After blaming the delay on “inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results,” it wasn’t until well into Tuesday afternoon that the Iowa Democratic Party was confident enough in the accuracy of its figures to begin releasing partial results, drawing complaints that the process had been rendered unfair — the front-running candidates robbed of their rightful momentum, the underperformers able to hide their weakness. And all because of an app that disrupted what it was meant to streamline.

The firm behind the app, Shadow Inc., took responsibility in a series of tweets Tuesday.

“We sincerely regret the delay in the reporting of the results of last night’s Iowa caucuses and the uncertainty it has caused to the candidates, their campaigns, and Democratic caucus-goers,” the company said, adding that “the underlying data and collection process via Shadow’s mobile caucus app was sound and accurate, but our process to transmit that caucus results data generated via the app to the [Iowa Democratic Party] was not.”

“We feel really terrible,” Shadow Chief Executive Gerard Niemira told Bloomberg in an interview Tuesday. He blamed the breakdown on a bug in the app’s code, which he said had been discovered and fixed by 10 p.m. But by then, the damage was done.

Shadow started out as Groundbase, a tech developer co-founded by Niemira and Krista Davis, who worked for the tech team on Clinton’s campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination. In January 2019, it was acquired by ACRONYM, a Democratic nonprofit founded in 2017 “to educate, inspire, register, and mobilize voters,” according to its website. ACRONYM’s founder and CEO is Tara McGowan, a former journalist and digital producer with President Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign.

Niemira had previously worked at kiva.org, a San Francisco nonprofit that makes loans to entrepreneurs and others in the developing world, and Davis had spent eight years as an engineer at Google. Shadow’s chief operating officer, James Hickey, also worked in engineering for Clinton’s campaign.

“When a light is shining, Shadows are a constant companion,” its website says. “We see ourselves as building a long-term, side-by-side ‘Shadow’ of tech infrastructure to the Democratic Party and the progressive community at large.”

The company’s main products, according to its website, are a peer-to-peer messaging tool that helps campaigns send text messages to potential voters and a campaign data integration tool. Among Shadow’s larger clients is Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, which paid $42,500 to the firm in July 2019 for “software rights and subscriptions,” according to public disclosures. A Buttigieg representative said that fee was for the text-messaging tool.

Federal Election Commission records also show payments to Shadow from the Texas Democratic Party, Democratic Party of Wisconsin and Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. Kirsten Gillibrand’s short-lived presidential campaign also paid the company for unspecified software and fundraising consulting.

In the days leading up to caucus night, Shadow’s app was seen as “a potential target for early election interference,” according to the Des Moines Register.

Those fears didn’t materialize, according to the Iowa Democratic Party. “This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion,” communications director Mandy McClure said in a statement Monday night. “The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.”

But other warning signs before the caucus hinted at the problems ahead, said John Grennan, co-chairman of Iowa’s Poweshiek County Democratic Party. The lack of opportunities to train on the app in advance did not bode well, he said.

“We were supposed to be getting invitations to use it. The invites would never arrive,” he said. “A lot of people didn’t even load the app because it’s such a pain.”

When the big night came, Grennan, who was running the caucus site at Grinnell College, said he couldn’t tell whether the results he input transmitted properly.

“I kept getting kicked off,” Grennan said. He said he called the party’s hotline with a question, but gave up after nearly half an hour on hold. “I’m 90% sure it went through [on the app]. I’ll have to work under the assumption that if it’s not there, they’re going to call me.”

Ultimately, only one-quarter of precinct chairs were able to upload results successfully via the app, Bloomberg reported.

Shadow and its co-founders did not reply to emails seeking comment. ACRONYM appeared to distance itself from the company, describing itself late Monday as a hands-off investor and scrubbing mentions of the January acquisition and launch from its site.

The Iowa Democratic Party did not respond to questions about why it chose Shadow to build the caucus-reporting app.

Nevada’s Democratic Party planned to use Shadow’s app for its upcoming Feb. 22 caucus, but Chair William McCurdy II said Tuesday that his organization “will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus. We had already developed a series of backups and redundant reporting systems, and are currently evaluating the best path forward.”

Shadow was reportedly cobbled together in two months, with the Iowa and Nevada state Democratic parties each paying around $60,000, a fee several civic tech experts called low.

It was not evaluated by the Department of Homeland Security, which offers free assistance to state and local election officials and authorities to help improve the cyber security of their election systems through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was established in 2018.

Rodrigo Bijou, a security researcher at Sensent, said a two-month development timeframe “sounds kind of insane, especially considering that user testing and a well-planned rollout would be critical for the app to succeed in a caucus format.”

This is not the first snafu the Iowa Democratic Party has run into this election cycle. The party planned to roll out for the first time “virtual caucuses” — a tool for voters who could not attend in person. The plan was dropped in August after the Democratic National Committee raised security concerns.

For a lower price, the party could have staffed phone banks instead of commissioning a mobile system, which is a “security nightmare,” said Douglas Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa, who has studied election security and also served as co-chair of a precinct in the Iowa caucuses four years ago. Telephoning in results works fine, he said, even if it’s slightly slower.

“It was low-tech but it was reliable” he said “[The app] doesn’t sound like it was cost-effective. I can buy a lot of temp workers and phone lines for $60,000.”

Marian K. Schneider, president of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan election integrity organization, pointed to a decidedly low-tech choice made in Iowa that might prove vital: tallying votes on paper as well.

“The chairs have the actual results recorded. They’re preserved and can be aggregated from those records. That’s a good thing,” Schneider said. “It’s OK that we take the time to get it right.”

Times staff writers Melanie Mason, Matt Pearce, Melissa Gomez and Sam Dean contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — White House officials announced Friday they have found evidence that Mark Middleton, a former presidential aide, abused his White House access to impress business clients. He has been barred from entering the executive mansion without high-level approval, they said.

The decision came in response to indications that Middleton, a former aide to presidential advisor Thomas F. “Mack” McLarty, had flaunted his White House connections in an effort to become an international deal-maker.

Among other things, he is accused of using his White House business cards and keeping a voice-mail message on the White House telephone system long after he had left his job there. He also is accused of taking business clients to the White House dining room without authorization and portraying himself as someone with influence among President Clinton’s inner circle.

The announcement also reflected an effort on the part of the president to take affirmative steps in response to the burgeoning controversy over illegal and questionable fund-raising for the Democratic Party. While Middleton may prove to be little more than a bit player in the fund-raising saga, revelation of his actions caused the White House considerable embarrassment at a time when it is trying to fend off the scandal.

Before Middleton left the White House in February 1995, he was the chief aide to McLarty, who served initially as White House chief of staff and later as a senior presidential advisor. McLarty chose Middleton as his deputy after watching the young man work as a fund-raiser for Clinton in Arkansas in 1992.

Middleton, 32, a former Little Rock lawyer, also was a friend of Democratic fund-raiser John Huang, who was responsible for raising millions of dollars from Asian American sources–some of which has been returned by the Democratic Party because it was from illegal or questionable sources.

According to a political consultant in Taiwan, Middleton discussed the possibility of accepting an illegal $15-million contribution for the Democratic campaign from an official of the ruling Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party, in Taipei. Both he and Kuomintang officials have denied the allegation.

Middleton issued a statement Friday acknowledging that “questions have been raised about whether I misused access to the White House for personal gain. I categorically deny any implication that I acted improperly.”

Aides Raise Questions

Many of the questions about Middleton were raised by presidential aides who have spent the last week charting the former employee’s comings and goings at the White House in the nearly two years since he resigned.

The record they uncovered shows that Middleton entered the White House complex 65 times between February 1995 and last September and often roamed the premises and dined in the White House mess.

White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said the record suggests that Middleton abused his access, even though his business activities apparently were not in violation of ethics rules restricting what former presidential appointees can do.

“If you’re a visitor to the White House, you’re not supposed to be roaming the building [and] you’re not supposed to go to the White House mess, except with a White House employee,” a White House official explained.

Approval Condition

McCurry said that White House employees have been told that Middleton will not be allowed to enter unless he has the approval of the chief of staff. Until now, Middleton, like any other former employee, has been able to enter the complex at the invitation of anyone who works at the executive mansion.

“The White House looks askance at anyone misrepresenting themselves as a representative of the White House,” McCurry emphasized.

According to White House records, Middleton saw the president on six of his visits to the White House since February 1995. On one occasion, he accompanied James Riady, scion of a wealthy Indonesian family and a close friend of the president. They engaged Clinton in a discussion of U.S. trade policy with China.

Before joining the administration as a Commerce Department official, Huang was employed by the Riadys’ Lippo Bank. Middleton apparently made the acquaintance of both Riady and Huang in Little Rock, where they worked for Worthen Bank in the mid-1980s.

On another occasion after leaving his government post, officials said, Middleton attended a presidential reception at the White House accompanied by Siti Hediati Harijadi, the daughter of President Suharto of Indonesia. According to Middleton’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, Middleton is trying to broker a business deal for Suharto’s daughter.

Records show that eight of Middleton’s post-employment visits were authorized by McLarty. But White House officials said that McLarty remembers only one such visit, on March 20, 1995, when Middleton brought his new employer, Steven Green, then-owner of Samsonite and other companies, to the White House.

But most of Middleton’s visits to the executive mansion were authorized by lower-level employees who were Middleton’s friends. It was on these visits that White House officials suspect he took advantage of his access to escort potential clients, such as Suharto’s daughter, through the hallways and to the dining room.

For his part, Middleton claims that most of his visits were personal. “I visited the White House often because that is where my friends worked,” he said in his statement.

Visits Explained

But he acknowledged that he was occasionally accompanied by business associates.

“On a few occasions–probably less than 10 in total–I also had breakfast or lunch in the White House mess, sometimes with persons who were friends or business associates of mine,” he said. “I took them there as a courtesy and as an act of friendship. I never discussed business, raised money or arranged meetings with any White House official in connection with any of these visits.

“I never implied in any fashion that I still held a position in the White House or that I had any special influence there; I do not believe that anyone ever understood my efforts to arrange a lunch or a tour as anything other than as the modest gestures that they were.”

McCurry said that Middleton’s voice-mail message recently was erased from the White House telephone system. Officials are trying to decide whether to establish a policy governing how long such messages can be retained after an employee leaves.

“There was no good reason for his voice mail to be active for more than a year,” McCurry said.

As McLarty’s deputy, Middleton was often present during his boss’s meetings with U.S. and foreign business executives, such as the Riadys. At Enron, a Houston-based energy company, for example, executives recalled that they often talked to Middleton when McLarty was unavailable and developed a friendship with him.

Luskin, Middleton’s lawyer, said that his client received an “ethics briefing” shortly after he resigned. He was reminded that federal law prohibits him from lobbying the government on any issue in which he had been “personally or substantially involved.”

Different Standard

But Middleton was not asked to adhere to the much tougher standard imposed on those designated “senior employees.” That standard would have barred him from lobbying the White House on any issue, officials said.

Middleton maintained his relationship with the Riadys and corporate executives, such as those at Enron, after leaving the White House.

Not long after he had left, Middleton established his own company, CommerceCorp International, with an office on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House. He traveled abroad, looking for business opportunities.

“I am going to Asia, the Middle East and beyond,” Middleton told an Arkansas business publication in February 1995 as he embarked on an overseas tour. “I’m going out to meet people I have built relationships with.”

Middleton called on one of Riady’s business partners, Hashim Ning, in June 1995, while the elderly Indonesian was recovering from surgery. He brought with him a personal get-well letter from Clinton. After Ning died, his relatives contributed $450,000 last year to the Democratic Party.

On Friday, Middleton said that he was “not responsible in any way” for the contribution made by Ning’s relatives.

Middleton also went to Taiwan on Aug. 1, 1995. While there, according to a Taiwanese political consultant who said he was present, the former White House aide met with the chief financial officer of the Kuomintang and discussed a $15-million contribution–a discussion denied by both Middleton and the Kuomintang official. Such foreign contributions to U.S. campaigns are illegal.

Middleton’s accuser, C.P. Chen, said that Middleton also encouraged Kuomintang to hire him as its Washington lobbyist to provide a “direct channel” to Clinton. Middleton has denied making any such solicitations.

Amy Weiss Tobe, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said that Middleton was not authorized to raise funds for the Democrats.

However, White House officials confirmed that Middleton had been involved in raising money for the Clinton Birthplace Foundation, a group that intends to make a historic site out of the president’s childhood home in Hope, Ark.

In Taiwan, a businessman who also met with Middleton recalls that the young man was looking for a foreign business partner for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other U.S. firms. The businessman, who declined to be identified, said that he admonished Middleton about trying to use his official contacts to make deals.

As this businessman recalled their conversation: “I told him, ‘Mark, this is not the way to do business. You are too young. You’re using your position for business. But really you’re being used by others.’ ”

Luskin said that Middleton was not employed by the Riadys or the governments of Indonesia or Taiwan, even though he maintained close contact with them. Luskin declined to name any of Middleton’s business clients.

Times staff writers Maggie Farley in Taiwan and Richard Serrano in Little Rock, Ark., contributed to this story.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares for a summit in Alaska with his United States counterpart Donald Trump, he can draw on his experiences from 48 previous meetings with American presidents.

Over 25 years as Russia’s leader, Putin has met and worked with five US presidents: Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden.

While some of the earlier meetings were relatively warm, reflecting the hopes of US-Russia friendship between the end of the Cold War and the early 2000s, most of Putin’s more recent interactions — especially with Obama and Biden — have been frostier, as bilateral ties have worsened.

Here’s a recap of some of the key moments from those past meetings, and how jazz concerts and fishing trips gave way to threats.

June 2000: Putin-Clinton

Less than three months after he formally became president of Russia, Putin hosted US President Clinton in Moscow. The Russian leader took Clinton on a tour of the Kremlin, after which a Russian jazz group performed for them.

Clinton congratulated Putin on Russia’s decision to ratify two arms control treaties. “President Yeltsin led Russia to freedom. Under President Putin, Russia has the chance to build prosperity and strength, while safeguarding that freedom and the rule of law,” Clinton said, referring to Boris Yeltsin, Putin’s predecessor as president.

Putin, on his part, described the US as “one of our main partners”. Moscow, he said, would never again seek confrontation with Washington. “Never. We are for cooperation. We are for coming to agreement on problems that might arise,” he said.

But Clinton acknowledged their differences over Chechnya, where Russian forces had launched a major war the previous year, after a series of apartment blasts in Russia killed more than 300 people. Moscow blamed Chechen separatists for the explosions.

The Moscow meeting was the first of four between Putin and Clinton in 2000, the others on the margins of multilateral events, before the US president left office in January the following year.

November 2001: Putin-Bush

After the September 11 attacks, Putin was the first world leader to call then-US President Bush and offer support. Two months later, Bush hosted Putin at his Crawford, Texas ranch, optimism about ties dripping from his words.

“When I was in high school, Russia was an enemy. Now the high school students can know Russia as a friend; that we’re working together to break the old ties, to establish a new spirit of cooperation and trust so that we can work together to make the world more peaceful,” Bush said. Bush drove Putin in a pick-up truck to a waterfall on the ranch.

But by the time they met in Russia in November 2002, US-led efforts for NATO expansion had injected unease into the relationship.

July 2007: Putin-Bush

By this point, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 had amplified tensions between the two countries. But despite differences, Bush continued to maintain a warm personal relationship with Putin, whom he hosted at his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Both acknowledged areas where their views diverged, but they each credited the other with transparency.

Bush took Putin fishing. The Russian president was the only one who caught a fish on that trip – it was set free, Putin said.

April 2008: Putin-Bush

The final meeting between Bush and Putin as presidents took place in Sochi, Russia, and was focused on US plans to expand a missile defence system in Europe that Russia was opposing.

There was no breakthrough – the two leaders agreed to disagree.

But their personal rapport appeared intact. Bush met Putin 28 times in total. He only met British Prime Minister Tony Blair more.

July 2009: Putin-Obama

Putin was now prime minister, with ally Dmitry Medvedev the Russian president.

US President Obama met Putin during a visit to Moscow. By now, differences had grown over Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, which the US had opposed.

“We may not end up agreeing on everything, but I think that we can have a tone of mutual respect and consultation that will serve both the American people and the Russian people well,” Obama told Putin.

June 2013: Putin-Obama

As Obama met Putin on the margins of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland — Russia had been added to the grouping in 1998 and was expelled in 2014 after its annexation of Crimea — their frustration with each other was visible in an awkward photo that made headlines.

The US and its allies wanted then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to quit amid the civil war in that country, but Russia was backing him.

“With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence; securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they’re neither used nor are they subject to proliferation,” Obama said.

November 2016: Putin-Obama

By the time Obama and Putin met for the ninth and final time at the APEC Summit in Peru, there was no pretence of bonhomie.

Russia had accused the US of engineering a coup against its ally and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. The US and its allies had imposed sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea.

Putin and Obama spoke for barely four minutes on the sidelines of the summit, with the US president asking his Russian counterpart to stick to his commitments under the Minsk agreements that were meant to bring peace to Ukraine.

July 2018: Putin-Trump

A year and a half into his first presidency, Trump’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election was still clouded by accusations that Russia had interfered in the election on his behalf when he met Putin in Helsinki.

The two met alone, with only interpreters. In a media interaction after that, Putin tried to recast the relationship in optimistic hues. “The Cold War is a thing of past,” he said, before listing a series of modern challenges facing the world — from an environmental crisis to terrorism. “We can only cope with these challenges if we join the ranks and work together. Hopefully, we will reach this understanding with our American partners.”

But it was Trump who made headlines. After he acknowledged that he had discussed the allegations of election interference with Putin, Trump was asked whether he believed US intelligence agencies that had concluded that Moscow had intervened in the vote.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said. “He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

Trump met Putin six times in all in his first term.

June 2021: Putin-Biden

US President Joe Biden flew to Geneva for his only face-to-face meeting with Putin.

After years of steady deterioration, relations had reached their nadir after Biden had described Putin as a killer in March, prompting Russia to withdraw its ambassador from Washington. The US had followed.

The Geneva meeting helped reset ties – a bit. Both countries agreed to reappoint ambassadors.

But Biden was also blunt with Putin about US concerns over Russian election interference and cyberattacks, and said he had, in effect, threatened Moscow that Washington could launch tit-for-tat cyberstrikes.

Russia by then was building up its troop presence along the border with Ukraine, a key source of stress in ties with the US that came up during the Putin-Biden meeting.

Eight months later, Russia would launch a fully fledged invasion of Ukraine, marking the start of Europe’s largest war since World War II — a war Trump says he wants to end through the summit in Alaska on August 15.

LONDON — President Clinton and Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole have more in common than wanting to be president. They are distant cousins.

But Clinton has a snootier pedigree, according to genealogists who say that gives him an election edge.

Both Clinton and Dole can trace their ancestry to King Henry III and Presidents William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, according to Burke’s Peerage.

But Clinton has far more royal blood than Dole because he is directly descended from King Robert I of France and is also related to every Scottish monarch and to the current British royal family.

Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke’s Peerage, says Clinton’s bluer blood gives him an edge on Nov. 5.

“The presidential candidate with the greatest number of royal genes has always been the victor, without exception, since George Washington,” Brooks-Baker said.

WASHINGTON — President Clinton on Tuesday rejected demands by veterans for an outside agency to take over the Defense Department’s investigation of Persian Gulf War illnesses, instead extending the life of a presidential advisory panel so it can keep watch over the Pentagon’s efforts.

Clinton also endorsed a proposal by Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown to allow Gulf War veterans more than two years to document their ailments and still qualify for access to VA disability benefits. Some veterans of the war have said that their symptoms did not show up until too late.

The compromise gestures came after the presidential advisory commission, which is made up of a dozen physicians and scientists, issued a report concluding that nerve gas exposure during the 1991 war was unlikely to have caused any of the ailments suffered by veterans.

Although the panel criticized the Pentagon for failing to take the issue seriously until recently, the report said that the Defense Department and the VA have provided good medical care to the veterans and now appear to be investigating the problem in earnest.

Neither the panel’s findings nor Clinton’s decision to ask the group to exercise “oversight” of the Pentagon’s efforts was a surprise. The committee, which studied the issue for 19 months, had signaled its conclusions in a draft report two months ago.

Clinton promised a veterans group Tuesday that, despite some shaky starts, “we will not stop until we have done all we can to care for our Gulf War veterans, to find out why they are sick and to help to make them healthy” again. “We are on the right track,” he asserted.

Nevertheless, Persian Gulf veterans’ organizations were critical of the report, dismissing it as incomplete and calling for another independent study of the issue, possibly by a special prosecutor equipped with subpoena powers.

“We are very disappointed,” said Chris Kornkven, spokesman for the National Gulf War Resource Center, a coalition of 24 veterans groups. He said that the panel had “done a great disservice to . . . veterans of the Gulf War . . . who claim they are sick.”

Separately, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) disclosed the results of a survey of about 2,000 Persian Gulf veterans in Iowa suggesting that they were as much as three times more likely to suffer one or more symptoms than service members who were not in the 1991 war.

However, outside analysts said that the study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was based on a telephone survey of veterans, without any opportunity for medical officials to confirm their illnesses.

The survey is to be included in a series of studies made public today by the Journal of the American Medical Assn. Officials said that the others, based on a mail survey of 240 naval reservists, would seek to link Gulf War illness to organophosphates exposure.

The advisory committee report did little to resolve the mystery surrounding Gulf War illness. In all, 60,000 of the 697,000 U.S. troops who served in the Gulf War have complained of symptoms ranging from chronic fatigue to muscle aches and memory loss.

The panel’s findings were in line with those of four previous studies of the Gulf War illnesses, by the Pentagon, the veterans’ department, the CDC and the prestigious U.S. Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.

As has been the case in the other studies, Tuesday’s report concluded that, despite all the research, there is no current evidence that would link the symptoms to the contaminants encountered by soldiers during the U.S. intervention there.

It also discounted as unlikely claims by veterans who say that their ailments were caused by exposure to a variety of chemical contaminants, from oil well fires in Kuwait to pyridostigmine bromide pills, which were given to U.S. soldiers to protect them against chemical weapons.

However, the report urged the government to step up efforts to find out how many U.S. soldiers may have been exposed to nerve agents near Khamisiyah, where troops destroyed an Iraqi weapons bunker just after the war ended. The Pentagon is now investigating.

As it has throughout its 19-month investigation, the committee criticized the Pentagon’s initial handling of the Gulf War issue–particularly its refusal to investigate fully reports that U.S. troops may have been exposed to nerve agents at Khamisiyah.

The 174-page report said that the panel had found “substantial evidence” of low-level exposure to chemical warfare agents at several sites in Iraq and Kuwait and said that the Pentagon’s efforts to explain them so far had been “superficial” and “unlikely to provide credible answers.”

Nevertheless, Joyce C. Lashof, chairwoman of the panel, said that she had found “no evidence of a cover-up,” as many Gulf War veterans have alleged.

Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary are among a range of high-profile people to be sent subpoenas from a congressional committee investigating deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Republican James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, issued the subpoenas on Tuesday to the Clintons, as well as eight other individuals.

The committee is seeking information about Epstein’s history, after President Donald Trump’s administration decided against releasing more federal files on the late financier.

That decision sparked outrage among Trump’s supporters and some Democrats, as many believe the files include a “client list” of famous men affiliated with Epstein.

As the rift between Trump and his conservative base on Epstein continues to widen, the committee, made up of both Democrats and Republicans, recently voted to issue the subpoenas.

They cast a wide net across justice department leadership during the George W Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, and the committee also subpoenaed the department itself for records related to Epstein.

Lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, had indicated she was willing to testify before the powerful investigatory committee, with strict legal protections. Her scheduled 11 August deposition, though, has been postponed indefinitely.

The Epstein legal saga has spanned two decades, with Florida police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation first scrutinising the well-connected man for allegations of sexual abuse in the early 2000s.

Comer wrote in letters to each person that the committee must “conduct oversight of the federal government’s enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr Epstein” and Maxwell.

He also indicated that depositions will start this month and run through the fall, with Bill Clinton scheduled for 14 October.

Former attorneys general Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales, were summoned, along with Jeff Sessions and William Barr, who both led the department during Trump’s first term. Former FBI directors James Comey and Robert Mueller were also sent subpoenas.

The Clinton administration predates the Epstein investigation, but the couple’s critics have long questioned their relationship with Epstein.

A spokesperson has acknowledged that Bill Clinton took four trips with staff on Epstein’s private plane in 2002 and 2003, and met with Epstein in New York in 2002. Clinton also visited Epstein’s New York apartment around that time.

The letters to each Clinton cites these incidents, as well as other alleged encounters and connections, as reasons for summoning them.

In 2019, a spokesman said the former president “knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York.”

The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Department of Justice had no comment.

The committee is seeking all of the department’s documents and communications on Epstein and Maxwell “relating or referring to human trafficking, exploitation of minors, sexual abuse, or related activity”, as well as files from the US criminal cases against Maxwell and Epstein, documents from a 2007 agreement to not prosecute Epstein and federal investigations into the former financier.

It is not immediately clear if individuals named by Comer will appear before the committee and, if they do, whether they will testify publicly.

Over the last 200 years, only four other former Presidents have received subpoenas from congressional committees, and only two provided testimony.

Notably, the committee investigating the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot voted during a televised hearing to subpoena Trump, who then sued to stop it. The subpoena was dropped when the committee disbanded.

Federal prosecutors charged Epstein with sex trafficking of minors and other crimes in 2019, during the first Trump administration.

He died by suicide in jail that August, and almost immediately afterward many began questioning the circumstances of his death.

This summer, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her department, after conducting a review, had found no evidence of the long-rumoured “client list”. She also said evidence supported that Epstein died by suicide and the government would not release any more files.

The announcements sparked outrage among some supporters of Trump, who promised in his campaign to release the records.

The fight among House Republicans over the case grew so contentious that House Speaker Mike Johnson sent lawmakers home early in July to block a vote over the Epstein files’ release.

As demands grew for Trump for more Epstein records, the justice department recently met with Maxwell, and it is currently seeking to release grand jury transcripts from her case. On Tuesday, Maxwell’s lawyer said she opposed the release of the transcripts.

The BBC has asked the White House for comment on the subpoenas.

Reporting from Washington — President Obama and Hillary Clinton both expressed surprise Thursday that a $400-million cash payment to Iran early this year has suddenly become an issue in the presidential campaign.

After all, Obama had publicly disclosed the payment to Iran at a White House news conference in January called to announce implementation of the historic Iran nuclear deal.

At a news conference Thursday at the Pentagon, Obama did little to hide his bemusement at having to answer questions about the payment.

“There wasn’t a secret,” he said. “We announced [it] to all of you.”

He described the money as the return of Iranian funds from a dispute dating back to the 1970s.

The administration could not send the money in dollars or send a wire transfer of funds because of U.S. sanctions, Obama said, so the money was delivered in other currencies

“We couldn’t send them a check,” he said.

The president flatly rejected allegations that the $400 million was a ransom for four Americans who were released from Iranian custody at about the same time.

The idea that the U.S. would have paid ransom “defies logic,” Obama said, and would have betrayed the families of other Americans held unjustly around the world — many of whom he has met with personally.

He took the opportunity to defend the landmark nuclear accord that the U.S.-led international coalition reached with Iran more than a year ago. The agreement has “worked exactly the way we said it was going to work,” he said.

The impetus for renewed questions about a publicly announced settlement was a Wall Street Journal account of the transaction, which revealed that the $400 million was “converted into other currencies, stacked onto the wooden pallets and delivered to Iran on an unmarked cargo plane,” as the paper described it.

The existence of the deal itself was indeed disclosed and reported in real time, covered by the Los Angeles Times and others.

But what’s old can still be news, especially given the pace of the modern news cycle. Put it in the midst of a presidential campaign and all bets are off.

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has questioned the payment for two days.

“I woke up yesterday and I saw $400 million dollars, different currencies, they probably don’t want our currency,” Trump said Thursday in Portland, Maine. “Four hundred million dollars being flown to Iran. I mean, folks what’s going on here? What is going on?”

Trump again cited a video that he said shows an “airplane coming in and the money coming off.”

“That was given to us has to be by the Iranians,” he said. “You know why the tape was given to us? Because they want to embarrass our country. They want to embarrass our country. And they want to embarrass our president.”

But his campaign has acknowledged to CBS News that the video, in fact, shows Americans landing in Geneva, Switzerland, and wasn’t provided by Iran.

Stephen Miller, a senior policy advisor to Trump’s campaign, still insisted that “nothing less than a full investigation is required.”

“This administration has embarrassed our country as no administration has before, going so far as to fund Islamic terror through cash payments to Iran,” he said in a statement.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) raised concerns that the report confirmed suspicions that the money was paid as ransom for the release of several U.S. citizens, including journalist Jason Rezaian, held by Iran.

Iran said it was owed the money from an unfulfilled contract for U.S. fighter jets that the previous, U.S.-backed government had paid to the Pentagon. The aircraft were never delivered after the shah of Iran was deposed in the 1979 revolution.

Ryan said if it were a ransom payment, it would “mark another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people” to sell the international agreement with Iran to limit its nuclear development program.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest denied that the money was paid as ransom.

“The United States does not pay ransoms,” he said. “The only people who are making that suggestion are right-wingers in Iran who don’t like the deal, and Republicans in the United States that don’t like the deal.”

Clinton, who stepped down as secretary of State several years before the payment was made, bluntly described it as “old news” in an interview with a Colorado television station.

“So far as I know, it had nothing to do with any kind of hostage swap or any other tit for tat,” she said.

Republicans were only reviving the issue “because they want to continue to criticize the [nuclear] agreement, and I think they are wrong about that.”

“I have said the agreement has made the world safer, but it has to be enforced. And I’ve spoken out very strongly about how I will enforce this agreement,” she added. “I will hold the Iranians to account for even the smallest violation, and that’s exactly what I think needs to happen.”

[email protected]

For more White House coverage, follow @mikememoli on Twitter.

ALSO

Trump’s latest flare-up stirs an already sizzling Northern California congressional race

How deferments protected Donald Trump from serving in Vietnam

Napster co-founder Sean Parker once vowed to shake up Washington — so how’s that working out?

UPDATES:

3:40 p.m.: This story was updated with comments by President Obama and Donald Trump.

The first version of this post was published at 11 a.m.

This year’s presidential race will be won or lost in a handful of states that have swung between Democrats and Republicans over the years. Here’s our guide to the battlegrounds and how their political landscapes could hand them to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

For each state we’ve included the estimated percentage of the electorate that is white (a group that favors Trump overall), the percentage of white college-educated voters (a subset typically won by Republicans but now leaning toward Clinton) and the results in 2008 and 2012. The figures come from the Cook Political Report.

Florida is where close presidential contests are won or lost, sometimes by razor-thin margins. (See: Bush vs. Gore and the hanging chad).

There are signs that Clinton is positioned to edge out a victory here. For starters, the state’s significant Latino population is changing — there are more Puerto Ricans, who often lean Democratic, and fewer Cuban Americans, who are more reliable Republican voters.

Could Trump still win here? The part-time Floridian, whose Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach has been the site of numerous campaign events, needs turnout among black and Latino voters to lag behind previous elections.

Influx of Puerto Ricans could be game-changer in country’s biggest swing stateTrump’s climate science denial clashes with reality of rising seas in Florida

Ohio has a well-earned reputation as a political bellwether — it’s voted for the winner in every presidential contest except one since 1944.

But this year could be different. First, the state’s population is less representative of the nation than before, becoming older and whiter as the rest of the country diversifies. That should be a boost for Trump.

However, he’s been unable to unify the state’s Republican Party around his candidacy, and not even the state’s popular governor, John Kasich, voted for him. 

North Carolina tends to be out of Democrats’ reach in presidential elections — Obama won, barely, in 2008, then lost in 2012. But Clinton seems intent on turning the state blue with the help of high-profile supporters such as President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. 

A major issue has been protests in Charlotte after police fatally shot a black man, pulling the city into a nationwide debate over race and criminal justice. It’s possible the political ripples could benefit Clinton, who has pushed for policing reforms and is counting on strong support from black voters.

 As one of the whitest states in the country, Iowa is fertile terrain for Trump, who has struggled with black, Latino and Asian voters. He could also benefit from a united Republican front that has eluded him in some other battlegrounds.

Clinton doesn’t have a strong track record in the state. She lost the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses in 2008 when she ran against Obama, then narrowly edged out Bernie Sanders this year.

Pennsylvania has been a blue state for more than two decades,but there were concerns among Democrats that Trump could boost his numbers with white, working-class voters.

That doesn’t seem to have materialized, and Clinton has maintained a strong base of support among black voters in places such as Philadelphia. The city is such a Democratic bastion that Mitt Romney didn’t earn a single vote in 59 precincts in 2012.

In addition, Clinton’s campaign has set its sights on the Philadelphia suburbs, where Republicans are usually more competitive but Trump has struggled.

It wasn’t long ago that Democrats were ready to write off Colorado.  But the state has been rapidly transformed by an influx of Latinos and young, highly educated transplants — demographics that make it a much safer bet for Clinton.

Also hurting Trump is his low support among women disgusted with his sexist remarks. Even though he may be able count on support from conservative strongholds such as Colorado Springs, the growing suburbs around Denver could be slipping out of Republicans’ reach.

Trump’s name already looms over Las Vegas from the candidate’s hotel, but winning the state is another matter. Nevada is home to an increasing number of Latinos who have been turned off by Trump’s hard-line immigration stance and his derogatory comments about Mexicans and other immigrants.

The Clinton campaign has invested heavily in a state organization to balance out the enthusiasm among Trump supporters. Voters here have a strong anti-establishment streak, something the New York businessman and first-time candidate could turn to his advantage.

Democrats have regarded Georgia like a big, fat, juicy peach, just waiting to ripen and fall. Their expectation has been the increased clout of the state’s growing black, Latino and Asian populations would turn this reddest of states blue sometime over the next decade or so.

Some hope that day could come this year if Trump repels enough minority and women voters. However, it’s less than an even-money bet for Clinton. 

Donald Trump’s steady slide in the polls has made this normally Republican state vulnerable to turning blue this year. He’s lost the support of Sen. John McCain, and he was never endorsed by the state’s other senator, Jeff Flake.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is trying to take advantage of a rare opportunity, with appearances by First Lady Michelle Obama, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and the candidate herself. A Democratic victory would likely rely heavily on Arizona’s growing number of Latinos, who have heavily favored Clinton over Trump.

[email protected]

Twitter: @chrismegerian

ALSO:

Here’s what we know so far about voter fraud and the 2016 elections

Red vs. blue states: Check out our interactive Electoral College map

Updates on California politics

Updates from the campaign trail

SAN DIEGO — President Clinton arrived here Monday pledging again to make special efforts to help Californians with their economic problems but asking that they in turn agree to the sacrifices demanded in his pending budget plan.

Clinton, beginning a two-day campaign-style swing through the West to gather support for his agenda, reminded a crowd of several hundred that greeted him at the North Island Naval Air Station that he had vowed his help for California’s problems during his campaign.

“We are going to work our hearts out in Washington in order to move this state together,” he said. And he cited his proposals to foster defense conversion, to provide federal support for California’s special immigration problems and to stimulate the economy in a way that would help California’s ailing real estate industry and small businesses.

“California needs an economic strategy that will be built from the grass roots up, but will have a partner in the White House,” he declared, adding, “the federal government’s going to do more to pay our fair share.”

At the same time, Clinton renewed his call for Americans to support his budget against resistance from congressional Republicans and others.

“When you hear people say ‘No, no, no,’ ask where they were for the last 12 years,” he said. Referring to his Republican predecessors, he said “the most popular thing to do in public life is to cut taxes and raise spending. But sooner or later your string runs out.”

Clinton’s appearance began the second straight week of forays into the country to drum up support for an economic program that has lost ground in the polls. On Monday evening he was scheduled to take questions from the public in a live, hourlong TV “town hall” broadcast from San Diego’s KGTV, Channel 10. Today he is to visit Los Angeles Valley College in Van Nuys to talk about worker retraining, and later to stop at a business on Florence Avenue in South-Central Los Angeles to promote his plans for urban redevelopment.

He spent much of Monday at a stop in Los Alamos, N. M., pointing to the Los Alamos National Laboratories, where the atomic bomb was developed during World War II, as proof of the potential of his five-year, $20-billion defense conversion plan.

Clinton said the 50-year-old laboratory’s early move into commercial enterprises proves that defense industries can be successfully converted to commercial use in the aftermath of the Cold War. But he also used the occasion to stress his No. 1 theme, that Congress needs to pass his economic program to cut the deficit and step up spending that will strengthen the economy.

In remarks at Los Alamos High School, Clinton said the 7,600-employee nuclear laboratory had made important contributions to the weapons research that kept pressure on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He said that in the last several years the lab’s efforts to find commercial applications for its research had spawned 30 companies and 100 government-industry partnerships.

Clinton said such relationships would begin the kind of “economic chain reaction” that could help the nation create high paying jobs.

The laboratory, with an annual budget of $1 billion, conducts commercial research into batteries, oil recovery, advanced materials and other such projects. Clinton cited its advances in the process called ion implantation, which is used to make stronger materials and which grew out of research begun on the Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars,” launched by President Ronald Reagan.

Only last week, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin declared an official end to the “Star Wars” program. But Clinton acknowledged: “Something good came out of it, because people were looking to break down frontiers.”

But as he spoke about defense conversion, Clinton repeatedly moved into discussion of the need for sacrifices to cut the federal deficit. “Everybody’s for deficit reduction in general, it’s the details that swallow us whole,” he told a crowd of several thousand.

The Los Alamos laboratory had been spared deep cuts, but under Clinton’s proposed budget it faces about $40 million in budget cuts that officials say could force the layoff of about 100 people.

Clinton’s two-month old defense conversion program proposes to spend $19.6 billion over the next five years. The money would go to retrain workers displaced by military cutbacks, to allow early retirement of some military and civilian workers, for environmental cleanup and for grants to help military contractors find civilian applications for their work.

Critics have charged that the program underestimates the difficulty of converting defense businesses to civilian work. And they say that in any case the $19.6 billion will have only a limited effect in helping the 2.5 million workers who could lose their jobs in the next decade.

But Clinton asserted: “It is a good beginning.”

Pressed by slumping polls and unresolved questions about his Bosnian policy, Clinton has sought to rebuild support for his program by explaining its payoff for Americans, and particularly for the middle class.

The President hopes that strong public support will bring pressure on Congress to go along with his economic and health care plans.

Clinton’s appearance in Los Alamos was well tailored to his goal of using the news media to drum up support. To ensure that enthusiasm was high, the organizers bused in thousands of high school students; they passed out American flags just before the event began.

Located on a valley overlooked by the snowcapped Sangre de Cristo mountains, the event made a striking picture.

Clinton came close to a faux pas at one point in his remarks, calling Los Alamos “Los Angeles.”

A chorus of boos followed. But Clinton tried to make a graceful recovery:

“I’m going there tomorrow,” he explained to the crowd. “And if I say ‘Los Alamos’ there, will you cheer?”

As has become his habit, Clinton spent part of his day conducting interviews with TV news stations, in an effort to give his message wide and largely unchallenged access to local markets.

The President’s California visit is his second since the election to a state that his advisers say is key to his strategy for 1996.

California’s unemployment rate fell to 8.6% in April, from 9.4% in March. But the state’s rate still lags far behind the national rate of 7%.

Part of Clinton’s hope to help California was stymied when Senate Republicans blocked the $19-billion economic stimulus proposal that would have channeled more than $2 billion to the state.

After the TV town hall, Clinton was scheduled to appear at a reception for local politicians and supporters at the television station, then to attend a dinner at the home of Larry and Shelia Lawrence. The Lawrences own the Hotel Del Coronado and are Clinton supporters.