interview

SACRAMENTO — Even before President Trump’s latest wave of unfounded claims of election fraud in California, a significant share of voters in the state expressed concerns about federal interference in the electoral process, according to a new poll.

Trump on Monday claimed on his social media site that the race for Los Angeles mayor was a “Rigged Election,” an allegation that came after Democrat Nithya Raman overtook Republican Spencer Pratt for second place in the ongoing primary election vote count.

Raman’s lead had prompted Rep. Abe Hamadeh, an Arizona Republican, to call for the election to be federalized, or run by the federal government rather than the state, a message Trump reposted.

Earlier Sunday, Trump had alleged during an interview with NBC News that California elections officials “were cheating.” That came after a debunked social media conspiracy theory claiming that a lag in an update of electronic voting data by the Associated Press showed Pratt was being cheated. On Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the elections process in the L.A. mayoral race “stinks to high heaven.”

The ongoing attacks by Trump and his supporters continue to erode confidence in the nation’s elections, especially among Republicans, threatening a pillar of American democracy, said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

“The president … wants to use those claims to make changes in the election process that could make it harder for people to vote, and that certainly is a threat to our democratic institutions,” Schickler said.

“One thing we’ve learned in recent years is that we just cannot take the voting process for granted, cannot take for granted that both sides will accept as legitimate the outcome, and can’t take for granted the idea that there won’t be efforts to essentially manipulate the vote counting process,” he added.

A new poll released Friday by the institute found that 41% of California voters were “not confident” that this year’s elections would be free of federal interference. Although 48% had confidence that there would be not meddling, the concerns expressed were still significant, Schickler said.

More telling was the partisan divide among voters when asked whether they have confidence that local officials would conduct fair and secure elections and that the vote count would be accurate. Among Democratic registered voters, 79% said they trusted elections officials to provide an accurate vote count. Among Republicans, 55% said they were not confident that would occur.

California voters who don’t belong to either party said by a 2-1 margin that they had confidence in the vote count, the poll showed.

“The positive is that local officials are still widely trusted by Democrats, no-party-preference voters, and at least a share of Republicans, though a lot fewer than I think in the past, and a lot fewer than you know we would want for a really healthy democracy,” Schickler said.

That growing mistrust among certain parts of the electorate comes after years of baseless claims by Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.

Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. In April, the court sharply limited a part of those protections that had forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress, as well as state and local boards.

Trump and his allies have used California’s slow vote-counting process to allege cheating. The day after the June 2 primary, Trump claimed without evidence that Democrats were trying to “steal” the gubernatorial and L.A. mayoral primaries. The next day, he alleged that California Democrats had “found” mail-in ballots and were “rigging the election” with them.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber and other officials have said California’s voting system prioritizes voter accessibility and security over speedy results. The state has more than 23 million registered voters, and ballots go through numerous verification steps, including verifying signatures on mail-in ballots.

“Over 97% of our folks actually vote by mail. They want to keep that system. That system demands more contact, more touching of the ballot, more verification of the individuals who are voting. All of those things take time,” Weber said during a recent interview with ABC10 in Sacramento.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called Trump’s claims during the recent “Meet the Press” interview the “most severe case of California Derangement Syndrome we’ve ever seen.”

Newsom is considering a 2028 run for president and has consistently warned that Trump may try to interfere in both the 2026 and 2028 elections.

The Berkeley poll found that California voters overall — 74% — want candidates running for president in 2028 to prioritize defending democracy and making voting more accessible. Among Democratic voters, 95% said that was important; among Republicans, 41%.

Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.

The poll of 8,578 registered California voters was conducted between May 19 and 25 online in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction.

Times staff writers Alene Tchekmedyian and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

IT’S the story the whole nation is talking about – and The Sun’s Clemmie Moodie has the inside scoop after joining Katie Price in Dubai to find out the truth about husband Lee Andrews. 

Conman Lee, 43, is serving time in the notorious Al Awir prison in the United Arab Emirates city, where he is being held for fraud. (Not “spying” as he has apparently suggested).

Clemmie and Katie, 48, have embarked upon an extraordinary international trek looking for “the world’s most hated man” – and tonight, she bares her soul to The Sun in her only sit-down interview since the firestorm started. 

And Katie confesses that if she doesn’t get the answers she wants from her husband, she is prepared to turn the tables in explosive fashion.

In the hour-long interview, Katie shares her sensational side of the story after initially being led to believe that Lee had been kidnapped before – following three weeks of zero contact – learning of his incarceration. 

She’s someone who has lived every possible high and low, both personally and professionally, in the glare of the public eye. 

PROUD MUM

Katie Price gushes with pride as Junior takes to the stage to perform in Monaco

‘SO STRESSED’

Katie Price says ‘I look like Skeletor’ as her weight drops over Lee battle

But even she warns readers of her latest tell-all: “You don’t want to miss it. 

“This is where you’ll see the truth.” 

Katie flew out to Dubai last Monday and has visited Al Awir Central Prison several times, though her only contact with her Lee has been via the phone.

She opens up to Clemmie about Lee’s infamous flight ban – after he humiliated her by forcing her to do a live TV interview without him – and about the concerns from loved-ones and fans alike over her marriage.

And, in a shock turn of events, Katie will tell all after being confronted with some damning news about the man she loves.

You can read and watch Clemmie’s interview with Katie tonight at 7pm right here on The Sun.

LEE Andrews’ lies, mistruths and mystery disappearance have captivated the nation following his flash wedding to Katie Price in January.

Accusations of fraud, gaslighting and emotional abuse have been levelled at him by ex-partners in recent months, all of who fell under his smooth-talking spell and promises of a happy future and financial riches.

Back in March, I became the first newspaper journalist to interview Lee following his emergence as Katie’s new man.

I held out little hope of it taking place when my initial request via WhatsApp was met with weeks of silence.

But then, out of the blue, Lee replied that he was keen to chat and to quash the ‘lies’ that had been spread about him.

I believe he was either that confident in his powers of persuasion that he could brazenly talk himself out of the numerous question marks around his lavish lifestyle and career, or that he viewed me as a useful idiot who could be hoodwinked into washing his tarnished reputation — perhaps a combination of the two.

GONE IN AN INSTA

The REAL reason Katie Price’s Instagram account was removed revealed

LEE’S LIES

I’ve spoken to the Lee Andrews survivors club – they could finally take him down

We set a date to talk the following week, but when the time came Lee revealed he was struggling with illness and would need to reschedule.

The interview was then postponed twice more with Lee still under the weather and, at this stage, it felt like I was being strung along, destined for the same fate as the Good Morning Britain producers who tried to land him for a TV interview months later.

To my surprise, he eventually made it onto the Zoom call on Friday, March 26, speaking from inside a Dubai branch of Caffé Nero.

Tanned and with salt and pepper stubble, he wore a baseball cap and T-shirt and sounded like someone coping with the last remnants of a cold.

I found him to be amiable, relaxed and open to being grilled on subjects that I thought would make him uneasy.

Off the bat I asked if he was a fantasist and compulsive liar, which he dismissed with a chuckle, telling me the claims were “comical and spin”.

For over an hour we went through everything from his dodgy CV, which he claimed was the result of errors from an unnamed personal assistant, his desire to start a family with Katie and plans for a lavish second wedding, his ability to speak multiple languages (with some muddling examples) as well as serious allegations from his ex-partners, which Lee likened to “barking dogs”.

There was also lots of business talk, full of wordy jargon that I can only assume was designed to impress and baffle someone not au fait with the workings of a cutting edge tech firm.

At the end of it all, we thanked each other and said our goodbyes.

The following day, the story ran in the paper with the humorous tag line: “I don’t really like liars myself. I do everything with honesty (just don’t look too closely at his CV).”

It was perfectly befitting of the ridiculousness of the story at the time, before even more ludicrous claims came to light including Lee’s attempt to buy Chelsea Football Club and boasts about being an international arms dealer.

But I expected Lee might not see it the same way I did and the next day I was proved right when he messaged me to say: “I don’t appreciate the pictures your edit team have used or the way the article has been written.”

I politely explained that we had a duty to examine the various claims against him, that a light touch of light humour was to be expected and that there was no malice in the framing.

His follow up surprised me.

Rather than pushing back, or at least further pleading his innocence on the accusations about his wealth and past relationships, Lee reiterated that his biggest issue was with his looks.

He simply said: “I don’t like the photo at all.”

The photos in question were a selection of unedited grabs from the Zoom call, a fair reflection on Lee through the course of the interview.

What struck me at the time, and even more so now in light of his disappearance and ghosting of wife Katie, is how his visual portrayal seemingly mattered more than any harm caused to others by his actions.

It’s no secret, Lee is fixated on his appearance; his numerous photoshopped pics have gone viral time and again.

The pictures we used took that editing power away from him and the reality appeared to hurt.

In other videos on social media he can be heard referencing his looks, from his hair to his chiselled body, and commenting about filters — or the lack thereof — to ‘prove’ he’s not fake.

He also took great pains to portray himself as a wealthy businessman with links to Kim Kardashian and Elon Musk, years after his sustainable vehicle company was quietly dissolved, which he continues to insist isn’t the case.

Further interactions between us saw him insist others simply couldn’t understand the workings of his complex world.

Optics are king with Lee and it seems he’s willing to let real feelings fall by the wayside as long as he is presented as the handsome, wealthy success story he’s so desperate to be — a mindset that could have heartbreaking consequences for Katie.

In Colombia’s volatile Catatumbo region, FARC dissidents say they returned to war after a historic peace deal failed to deliver security and social change.

Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo has exclusive access to the group as it fights rivals for control of territory and lucrative drug trafficking routes.

WASHINGTON — Democrats on Friday called former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi’s interview with the House Oversight Committee about her handling of the Epstein files a “sham” and a “coverup,” and said she refused to answer numerous questions about President Trump in the closed-door session with lawmakers.

“It’s a sham in there. They’re not answering any questions,” Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) told reporters during a break from the interview.

Bondi was joined in her interview by attorneys from the Department of Justice, including Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who intervened to prevent answers to some questions about Trump, Democrats said.

“The DOJ is in there right now stopping questions about President Trump and about what happened in the release of these files,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

He said Bondi, who was not under oath, declined to answer five questions he posed about the president.

The committee said it will release a transcript of the interview, which was not recorded on video.

The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March to appear for a deposition when she was still in office, but she didn’t initially comply, agreeing to the voluntary interview only after Democrats filed a resolution last month seeking to hold her in contempt.

Dhillon, a San Francisco attorney and longtime Republican activist who has been floated as a potential future attorney general, wouldn’t say whether she expressly prevented Bondi from answering questions about Bondi’s interactions with the president.

“There were ground rules laid with the committee before we walked in there and we simply wanted to stick to those,” Dhillon said.

Garcia said that Bondi blamed Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, then her deputy, for problems with the release of the files.

Bondi, who didn’t meet with reporters after her interview, disputed Garcia’s characterization.

“NOT TRUE. I praised Acting AG Blanche’s management of this Herculean task. I said his ethics are beyond reproach and that he is an incredible Attorney General,” Bondi wrote on X.

The department was criticized for not releasing the files as quickly as required under a law passed last year mandating release of all records from the department’s investigations into sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who died in federal custody in 2019.

The department also came under fire for failing to redact the names of some of Epstein’s victims, while redacting the names of some of Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators, as well as for its removal of some of the files it initially posted.

A group of Epstein victims who spoke with reporters in front of the closed doors of the Bondi interview criticized the department’s rollout of the files and the department’s lack of communication with victims.

“Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche have derailed the lives of so many survivors,” said Dani Bensky, who said she was abused by Epstein when she was a 17-year-old high school student in New York City.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M) said that in the interview, Bondi acknowledged she had never met with any of Epstein’s victims.

In Bondi’s opening statement, reviewed by The Times, she acknowledged issues with the rollout of the files, but defended the administration’s handling of the release.

“There were redaction errors,” Bondi’s opening statement said. “But since day one of this process, this Department has been committed to accountability and transparency.”

Bondi was fired by Trump on April 2 and faced questions throughout her tenure about the department’s investigations into Epstein.

In February 2025, she claimed on Fox News that she had a copy of Epstein’s supposed client list, showing the names of the financier’s high-powered friends that he had directed girls to have sex with.

But in July 2025, as Trump faced questions about his relationship with Epstein, whom he knew socially, the Justice Department closed its investigation into Epstein’s alleged crimes and said no such client list existed.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act soon after, requiring the Justice Department to release all of the records from its investigation into Epstein. Despite initially opposing it, Trump signed it into law on Nov. 19, 2025.

When asked about what Trump might have known about Epstein’s crimes, Bondi said she did not know, according to Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.)

“I’m not certain of the extent of his knowledge,” Bondi said, according to Walkinshaw.

Bondi responded to Walkinshaw’s claims, writing on X: “MISREPRESENTATION by Walkinshaw. What the world knows to be true is President Trump banned Epstein from Mar a Lago decades ago bc Epstein was a despicable creep!!”

Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Democrats would seek to speak with Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel next about the handling of the Epstein files and the department’s investigations into Epstein and his alleged co-conspirators.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) was the only Republican member of Congress to attend the interview and Democrats called out their Republican colleagues for not joining.

“I have an election in four days, a very important one,” said Min, the Democrat from Irvine. “But I’m here, rather than in my district, because this is important.”

After Arsenal‘s first league title for more than two decades was confirmed, tens of thousands of supporters rushed to Emirates Stadium to celebrate.

“I knew we were a sleeping giant that we needed to awaken in some way.” Kroenke said.

“We haven’t had a team, a squad like this in the social media age. Social media evolved and the Twittersphere and everything else around it.

“The instantaneous information, the ‘Banter Era’ – I’m aware of all this. I turned 46 last week.

“I’ve grown up around this and I’ve seen it all from my own perspective. I think that’s what I’m so proud to see. There was almost a time when you were a closeted Arsenal fan.”

But this success does not mean the end of the journey for Kroenke and his vision for the club, with the Gunners playing Paris-St Germain in the Champions League final on Saturday.

“I think I can think back and say that our stated goal was winning the Premier League, because if you can put yourself in contention for the Premier League, you’re in contention for everything else.” Kroenke said.

“Should we get a great result on Saturday, it’s not going to change or affect who we are. When you win something, the sun’s still going to come up the next day.

“You’ve got to get back to work and there are many teams trying to gain on you, including some historically great ones around the Premier League.

“So, we’re going to look to strengthen because we know that teams around us are going to get better. If you’re not trying to continually evolve and improve, you’re standing still.”

WASHINGTON — Former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi is scheduled to meet with the House Oversight Committee on Friday to discuss the Justice Department’s investigations into deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and its release of files related to that investigation.

But the circumstances surrounding her meeting with the committee raise questions about how much the committee will actually learn about either.

For one, the former attorney general will not be under oath in a sworn deposition but will provide a transcribed interview, which is voluntary. Bondi’s interview with the committee will happen behind closed doors with members of the committee and staff and will not be filmed. The committee says it plans to release a transcript soon after the hearing.

And Bondi will be represented at her interview by Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, which legal experts say raises the prospects that the Department of Justice could direct Bondi to not answer some questions posed by the committee.

Former Atty. Gen. William Barr, former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all gave sworn depositions.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, rejected the Clintons’ offer to provide a transcribed interview, rather than sit for a deposition, out of concern that someone giving a transcribed interview could “refuse to answer whatever questions he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted.”

Comer’s spokesperson said Bondi was allowed to sit for a transcribed interview, rather than a deposition, because the former attorney general was “cooperative.”

“Unlike the Clintons who defied subpoenas for seven months, former Attorney General Pam Bondi voluntarily and quickly cooperated with the Committee to identify a mutually agreeable date,” spokesperson Austin Hacker said in a statement.

Bondi had, in fact, refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena while she was still in office, and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), filed a resolution on April 29 to hold Bondi in contempt for not complying with the committee’s subpoena a month earlier. Bondi’s agreement to provide a transcribed interview was announced the same day.

The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March to learn more about the department’s long-running investigations into Epstein — the financier accused of abusing more than 1,000 women and girls and directing some of them to have sex with his high-powered friends — and the department’s release of files in response to the 2025 Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated disclosure of the investigative records.

Asked whether Dhillon’s participation indicated that the department planned to invoke privilege and bar Bondi from sharing some information, the department said in a statement that Dhillon and other agency officials would attend Bondi’s interview “solely to ensure accurate representation of Department processes, facilitate any necessary clarifications, and support a complete factual record for the Committee.”

The department added that it “routinely provides staff” to assist with “congressional engagement involving past Department staff actions.”

But a former DOJ ethics official, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said that Dhillon’s participation in the proceedings was anything but routine.

Typically, this type of work would be handled by a less senior attorney at the department who had more direct involvement with the subject matter at hand, the former official said. Dhillon oversees the department’s civil rights division, while the investigations into Epstein were criminal matters.

“I don’t see where Harmeet Dhillon has the experience or the normal level of authority that this would be delegated to,” the official said. “Everything about this seems unusual.”

Bondi would also need to have submitted a formal request for representation from the department.

“It doesn’t just happen willy-nilly,” the former ethics official said.

The department didn’t say how Bondi came to be represented by the agency’s attorneys. Bondi, who said this week she is being treated for thyroid cancer, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The presence of Dhillon — a San Francisco attorney and Republican party insider who has been talked about as a potential pick for attorney general — could also present a conflict of interest, experts said.

“It’s unclear if she is representing the interests of Bondi, the department, or herself,” said Dave Rapallo, a former staff director of the House Oversight Committee.

He said that Dhillon would not have been able to represent Bondi if her testimony was provided in a deposition because the committee’s rules prevent agency lawyers from attending depositions.

Bondi was fired by President Trump on April 2. She was dogged by questions about her handling of the Epstein investigation throughout her time in office.

Trump campaigned on the promise of releasing information about the government’s investigation into Epstein in 2024 and in February 2025, Bondi told Fox News that she had on her desk a list of clients of Epstein — who died in federal custody in 2019.

But months later, as questions swirled about Trump’s relationship with Epstein, the Justice Department announced that it was closing its investigation into Epstein and said that, in fact, no such client list existed.

Soon after, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, requiring the Justice Department to release all of the records from its investigation into Epstein. Trump initially opposed the legislation but ultimately signed it into law.

The department has released millions of pages of records in response to the law. While Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said in January that there are millions of additional pages of records that are not yet public, the department has indicated that it doesn’t plan to release these additional files.

WASHINGTON — Joe Biden sued the Justice Department on Tuesday in an effort to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of the former president’s interview with a ghostwriter that were obtained by the special counsel who investigated his handling of classified documents.

Biden’s lawyers said in a lawsuit filed in Washington’s federal court that the Justice Department plans to release the files to Congress and a conservative group, the Heritage Foundation, after the department had previously argued that they were exempt from disclosure under the public records law.

Biden’s lawyers argued that the disclosure would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of President Biden’s privacy.”

“Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” his attorneys wrote. “And when the U.S. Department of Justice obtains that private information through a criminal investigation, the Department bears a particular responsibility to protect it from disclosure.”

At issue in the case are audio recordings and transcripts of Biden’s interviews at his home in 2016 and 2017 with Mark Zwonitzer, who worked with Biden on his two memoirs. The files were scrutinized by special counsel Robert Hur as part of his investigation into the president’s improper retention of classified documents, from his time as a senator and as vice president.

Hur’s yearlong investigation led to a 345-page report that questioned Biden’s age and mental competence but recommended no criminal charges against the then-81-year-old. Hur said he found insufficient evidence to successfully prosecute a case in court.

Biden has separately fought the release of the audio of his interview with Hur. The House in 2024 voted to hold Biden Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over that audio after the White House exerted executive privilege, shielding it from Congress.

The transcripts of five hours of Biden interviews with federal prosecutors was released that same year. While Biden was adamant that he treated classified information seriously, the transcript shows that he was at times fuzzy about dates and details and he said he was unfamiliar with the paper trail for some of the sensitive documents he handled.

Republicans have argued Biden was being given a pass by his own Justice Department and that Trump had been unfairly victimized by prosecutors. Democrats, for their part, stressed Biden’s cooperation in the investigation and strongly contrasted that with the separate criminal case against Trump, who was accused of refusing to return classified documents requested by the National Archives that he had at his Florida estate.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Netflix is dropping a three-part docuseries that revisits Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial in which he was acquitted on charges of child molestation.

“Michael Jackson: The Verdict” drops June 3 and features archival footage and interviews with key players involved in the trial including jurors, figures from both the defense and the prosecution, journalists who were inside the courtroom and other eyewitnesses who saw the events unfold firsthand.

“It has been 20 years since the trial of Michael Jackson in which he was found not guilty. Yet, to this day, controversy still rages,” the filmmakers said. “No cameras were allowed in court, and so the public’s view of the facts at the time were filtered by commentators and presented piecemeal. It was time to take a forensic look at the trial as a whole.

“Anyone interested in the Michael Jackson story should feel this documentary gives them a window into what was largely a closed event and a chance to feel closer to what happened.”

The Santa Barbara Superior Court trial lasted 14 weeks, and the jury, which included eight women and four men, deliberated for more than 30 hours across seven days.

Jackson was acquitted on 10 felony charges: four counts of child molestation, four counts of plying a minor with alcohol in order to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation and one count of conspiracy to hold the boy and his family captive at the Neverland Ranch. He faced more than 20 years in prison.

Produced by Candle True Stories, the production company behind Netflix’s “Untold: The Liver King,” and directed by Nick Green, “Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” comes at a time of renewed interest in the “King of Pop.”

The Jackson-estate-approved biopic “Michael” hit theaters last month, and depicts the origin story of the hitmaker from childhood through his upward trajectory to superstar status in the 1980s. Notably, the movie omitted the slew of allegations that followed Jackson from the ’90s until his death in 2009.

Burnley interim manager Mike Jackson is pleased with the way his side kept themselves in the game in their 1-0 defeat at Arsenal and is unhappy Kai Havertz was not sent off in the second half.

MATCH REPORT: Arsenal 1-0 Burnley

Available to UK users only.

Liverpool manager Arne Slot acknowledges his side’s 4-2 defeat at Aston Villa is frustrating for himself, the players and the fans as they now need to win against Brentford on the final day of the season to secure Champions League qualification.

MATCH HIGHLIGHTS: Aston Villa 4-2 Liverpool

Available to UK users only.

SACRAMENTO  — As Xavier Becerra rose to the top echelons of power in Washington and Sacramento over the last two decades, his trusted advisor Sean McCluskie joined him at every step.

The son of a Scottish immigrant, McCluskie had a reputation as a political street fighter and his gruff style complemented Becerra’s more measured, cerebral approach.

Now Becerra is under attack in California’s wide-open governor’s race after McCluskie, 57, pleaded guilty in December to stealing more than $200,000 from Becerra’s campaign account.

The charges were part of a broader scandal that implicated or brushed up against some of Sacramento’s most influential Democratic political advisors, a scheme prosecutors allege included payments, bank fraud and an FBI sting operation that swept McCluskie’s incriminating private conversations and texts into evidence.

Rivals in the California governor’s race have seized on the case to question whether Becerra, one of the front-runners in the contest to succeed outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom, is fit for office and could be swept up in the case.

“We can’t have someone who is running as a Democrat who could run into legal difficulties,” said candidate Tom Steyer, who is close to Becerra in the polls.

Becerra has not been accused of wrongdoing, and prosecutors’ court filings describe him as a victim. He told The Times that he cooperated with investigators, including appearing before the grand jury.

“Sean was as close as any staffer that I’ve ever had,” Becerra said in an interview last week, describing how McCluskie moved across the country twice to work for him.

He added that he’s “racked” his brain to understand the case involving McCluskie and his longtime political consultant, Dana Williamson, both of whom he described as “very highly accomplished people.”

Williamson, who also served as Gov. Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff, was indicted in November. She had refused to cooperate with federal investigators and pleaded not guilty, but recently discussed a plea deal with prosecutors. A court hearing is set for Thursday, according to court filings.

An agreement could unearth more details about the case in the coming weeks, a possibility not lost on the Democrats and Republicans running for governor.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, one of the Democrats who has watched Becerra’s rapid ascent in the race, said in a CNN interview Monday that California can’t risk having Becerra in the race with the specter of the ongoing criminal case.

She acknowledged that “I do not have the facts” about the case, but said if Becerra were to finish in the top two in the June 2 primary and then be indicted by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, a Republican ultimately could win the governor’s race in November.

“Secretary Becerra cannot and has not guaranteed or promised the people of California that he will not be named as a co-conspirator and indicted,” she said.

Other candidates, and reporters, have questioned whether Becerra had a blind spot in trusting McCluskie.

Appearing on Fox40 News last year, Becerra likened the criminal case to being “married for 20 years” and “all of a sudden you find out that your spouse has been cheating.”

According to prosecutors, McCluskie, Williamson, and another consultant skimmed $225,000 from one of Becerra’s dormant campaign accounts and funneled it to McCluskie through various entities.

McCluskie, who declined to speak to The Times, sought the money because he’d taken a pay cut after joining Becerra in Washington when Becerra became Health and Human Services secretary in 2021, according to prosecutors.

And unlike Becerra, he didn’t move full-time to D.C., and was splitting his time between the nation’s capital and California, where his family lived.

On a phone call recorded by the FBI in 2024, McCluskie talked about the scheme and told a consultant, “This money you guys are giving me is helping me fly back and forth to D.C. and live there half part time.”

Becerra, in an interview, said McCluskie never mentioned his money problems. The pair worked together when Becerra served in Congress and as California attorney general.

After President Biden appointed Becerra to lead Health and Human Services, the pair discussed the move back to D.C.

“Even before we went to HHS, we had talked about whether we wanted to do this,” Becerra said. “We both agreed, ‘Yeah, you know, it’s going to be a sacrifice. We’re going to have to make changes.’”

Former Becerra staffers told The Times that Becerra and McCluskie were such a close team that they have a hard time imagining Becerra working in government without McCluskie.

Another former staffer, Amanda Renteria, said the two men bonded over their humble immigrant backgrounds. McCluskie’s family came from Scotland and Italy; Becerra’s relatives came from Mexico.

McCluskie relished going to battle for those less fortunate, she said.

“When Becerra became A.G., [people questioned] whether or not he had the style that could really take on Trump. If you were to meet Sean, you’d be like, Oh yeah, Sean is totally ready for a fight, he’s ready to take him on.

“That was sort of a difference with Becerra. Becerra had that fight in him. Sean wore it a little bit more,” said Renteria, a political strategist.

Becerra has faced repeated questions about his financial judgment after the criminal case revealed that he agreed to pay up to $10,000 a month to Williamson and another consultant to oversee one of his dormant campaign accounts.

The consultants charged him the fee as part of the scheme to divert money to McCluskie, prosecutors allege.

At the time, Becerra, a Biden Cabinet member, was barred from involving himself in campaign matters.

Becerra defended the payments during an interview with Fox40 last year, stating, “I was told that’s the rate I would have to pay to get someone who could manage that and make sure that I don’t have to worry about [violating any federal rules].”

Campaign finance records show Becerra had never paid such a high fee for his other accounts.

Becerra told The Times that his longtime attorney Stephen Kaufman, whom he was also paying to oversee the account, didn’t flag the payments. “I would have expected him to raise issues if he thought there was something wrong,” Becerra said.

Kaufman didn’t respond to questions about the account.

Los Angeles-based political consultant Eric Hacopian told The Times that the fees are “certainly high.”

“It’s obviously something he should’ve noticed. Either he was not paying attention, or was too trusting of these people,” said Hacopian, who isn’t involved in the governor’s race. “At the end of the day, he’s the primary victim.”

At a debate last week, rival candidate Antonio Villaraigosa pounced on the payments made by Becerra, saying that the politician “has to be under suspicion because it doesn’t pass the smell.”

Danni Wang, a spokesperson for Steyer, said in a statement, “So, which is it — did Becerra know about the illegal payments and participate in the campaign’s corruption, or was he a totally incompetent manager oblivious to what was going on underneath his nose?”

Renteria, the former Becerra staffer, said the allegations against McCluskie and others are particularly surprising given Becerra’s reputation as a “straight A student.”

“Part of it broke my heart,” she said.

Jonathan Underland, a Becerra spokesperson, said Becerra “has always been consistent and clear: Every action he took was in accordance with the law.”

“What he didn’t know — and what the FBI’s own investigation goes out of its way to clarify — is that his staff cooked up a scheme designed to deceive him.”

Becerra, in an interview, repeatedly said that he relied on McCluskie. It was McCluskie, he said, who advised him to make the payments. “I trusted him to handle the accounts,” he said.

He also said he was unaware of some of the details laid out by prosecutors.

Prosecutors said Williamson and others created a “no show” job for McCluskie’s wife, Kerry MacKay, to do work for the consultants.

MacKay never was paid, however, and the money went to an account controlled by McCluskie. MacKay, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, was not charged.

McCluskie’s plea agreement states that he told Becerra about his wife’s job with the consultants, though he didn’t tell the politician that his wife wouldn’t actually be doing any work.

Becerra, in an interview, said he didn’t recall McCluskie informing him about his wife’s work.

McCluskie’s sentencing is scheduled for June 4, two days after the primary.

KATIE Price and Lee Andrews have scrapped their first joint TV interview on Good Morning Britain.

The couple, who tied the knot in January, were due to appear on the ITV daytime series together on Tuesday.

Though after the self-styled businessman failed to travel to the UK, GMB media posts advertising the segment were hurriedly removed from the programme’s social media accounts after ITV staffers were told Lee would be unable to reach the UK.

GMB anchor Susanna Reid then confirmed Katie would appear on-screen solo.

She told viewers during the live show: “Katie Price is back with us in the studio.

“We invited them both [Katie and Lee] into the studio and initially yes, we though that would happen.

LEE ON TELLY

Katie Price & Lee Andrews set for first live TV interview – & it’s hours away

price tag

Katie Price risks new investigation as she promotes ‘cancer cure’ CBD product

“But Lee didn’t make his flight from Dubai, we are going to find out why when Katie joins us alone after 8”.

There is ongoing speculation that her husband Lee, 43, is unable to leave the United Arab Emirates city after allegedly forging his ex-girlfriend Dina Taji’s signature to secure a £200,000 loan – something he’s strongly denied.

Katie, 47, then posted on her social media – in a video which has now been deleted – to confirm the switch up.

She said on social media: “Where The Hell Is My Husband? Lee will not be on Good Morning Britain with me!!”

She added: “Well he is not coming, gutting really as he said he was coming, so I’m getting the house ready for me”.

A source mocked the cancellation and told The Sun: “Lee has a travel ban so he was never going to make GMB for a sit down interview with Katie.

“He assured them he was flying over, even Katie believed him – then it was all cancelled.

“Lee is still in Dubai because he has a travel ban that stops him from leaving.

Who is Katie Price’s husband Lee Andrews?

KATIE Price tied the knot with Lee Andrews in January 2026. Yet who is he?

• Katie Price has married businessman fiancé Lee Andrews in a whirlwind wedding
• It is the fourth time Katie, 47, has been a bride. She has also been married to Peter Andre, Alex Reid and Kieran Hayler
• Katie and Lee met just after being introduced on social media
• Lee claimed he is a billionaire in a failed clip from his acting career
• He now claims to be a Dubai-based businessman
• Yet The Sun has unmasked him as a fantasist who faked celebrity links using AI-generated photos and recently talked about marrying two other women
• Failed actor is just another title to add to Lee’s questionable CV, after he claimed to have once worked as the Director of Philanthropy at The Prince’s Trust (now The King’s Trust)
• Lee also shared images – since proven to be AI – of him working with Elon Musk and Kim Kardashian
• It’s been revealed shameless Lee told former girlfriends that he had studied at Cambridge University, and has a PhD in biotechnology science
• But The Sun has seen a response from the university explaining it could not find a record of Lee being registered as a student with a date of birth they had provided
• His LinkedIn profile says Lee has been a Member of the Board of Advisors to the Labour Party since 2015
• Lee was also mocked for repeating the exact same wedding proposal on Katie – that he did for another woman just four months ago.

“The sooner people stop falling for his claims he can leave Dubai the better.

“It’s a waste of time and energy.”

Katie returned to the UK from Dubai without Lee – who she married within just weeks of meeting him in at the start of the year – last week.

Despite the change, he has continued to re-post GMB uploads about their interview.

Back in April, Katie appeared to confirm he is subject to a travel ban

As such, she is the one doing the graft with the long haul flights.

Tottenham boss Roberto De Zerbi says his players are good enough to stay up after their draw with Leeds United leaves them two points clear above the relegation zone with two games to play.

MATCH REPORT: Tottenham 1-1 Leeds United

Available to UK users only.

TOWIE star Jake Hall laid bare the “only reason” he was still alive after hitting rock bottom in his heartbreaking last interview.

The 35-year-old, who has been found dead in a Spanish holiday villa, said the only thing that kept him going was his daughter River.

Now eight, the little girl brought him back from the brink after the collapse of his first fashion label Prévu in 2023.

He said: “I was at a very low point.

“I’d lost something that I’d loved and grew from my bedroom. I went through a lot of turmoil.

It comes as…

JAKE FRENZY

‘Agitated’ Towie star ‘smashed his head against glass in booze-fuelled rampage’

TRAGIC JAKE

Towie’s Jake vowed to ‘remember good things’ in last post hours before death

• ‘Agitated’ star ‘smashed his headagainst glass door’
• Jake was found dead at holiday villa in Majorca
• Jake vowed to ‘remember good things’ in final post
• Jack Fincham & DJ Fat Tony lead tributes
• How Jake cheated death after club stabbing

“If I’m honest, River is the reason I’m here today. She’s amazing and we’ve got an incredible relationship. She’s very creative, is always dancing and loves clothes.

“It was that part that hurt most when I lost Prévu. I lost something that was for her, everything I do is for her and her future.”

Jake shot to fame on The Only Way Is Essex in 2015 and had an explosive on-off relationship with Chloe Lewis, with millions of viewers following every moment of their doomed romance.

He left the show in 2016 and later revealed he had not kept in touch with any of his co-stars.

“I was very young,” he said.

“And it was an experience. I’m in a very different place in life now and want different things. There has been a lot of good and bad.”

Jake also opened about finding early success hard, and that he had struggled with self-belief when he was younger which had a major impact on his life.

He was desperate to be a role model for children who had faced similar problems and could not see themselves succeeding.

He said: “School was tough for me.

“I had dyslexia and quite a lot of problems growing up, and I want to show guys who might be similar to me that they can do it too. If I can, so can they.”

At the time of the interview in May last year, Jake was celebrating the launch of his second clothing brand By Jake Hall.

It had already been worn by major stars including David Beckham, former Vogue editor Edward Enninful and Manchester City star Erling Haaland.

Enninful, one of the most respected names in fashion, had worn one of Jake’s suits during the Monaco Grand Prix and had ordered two more.

Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta believes that the penalty awarded against Atletico Madrid for a foul on Eberechi Eze was not a “clear and obvious error”, meaning VAR did not need to intervene and the original on-field decision to give the penalty should have stood.

MATCH REPORT: Arsenal draw at Atletico after penalty controversy

Available to UK users only.

The KISS Breakfast radio hosts appeared on Channel 4’s Sunday Brunch this weekend

Tyler West and Chloe Burrows made an unexpected admission on Sunday Brunch.

Lorraine presenter Tyler, 30, and Love Island legend Chloe, 30, landed radio host roles on Kiss FM earlier this year, with the pair taking over the Breakfast show from Jordan Banjo and Perri Kiely.

Tyler and Chloe made an appearance on the latest episode of Channel 4’s Sunday Brunch (April 19), where they spoke to hosts Tim Lovejoy and Simon Rimmer about their radio show.

The pair excitedly spoke about meeting a variety of A-list stars through their new show, including Halle Berry, Margot Robbie and Chris Hemsworth. Chloe said: “They were so lovely. Everyone’s been really nice.”

Tim then asked: “Who are the rotten ones?” with Tyler issuing a very candid reply.

“Do you know what I’m going to say, I’m not going to say rotten ones. We had a really awkward one, I’m just going to say it, with Ryan Gosling,” he shared.

Chloe added: “Oh god, it was awful! I think he was really jet lagged and we were his first interview of the day, and we are kind of like a massive ball of energy. We’re like punchline, punchline, punchline, and he looked slightly bewildered.”

Tyler said: “He looked so confused. It literally got to the point where we had three minutes left of the interview and [we were] like, ‘Anything you want to chat about?'”

Chloe continued: “He looked for help,” before adding: “He asked us at one point if we’d actually seen the film, so that was good. And we had.”

Tim then noted: “I reckon if you interviewed him tomorrow, he’d be a lovely bloke, do you know what I mean? That’s how it is.”

Following the announcement of his role at KISS, Tyler previously said in a statement: “KISS FAM! The mornings are gonna be unreal! Taking over from my boys Jordan and Perri is huge… but trust me, I’m ready to bring it! It’s time for big laughs and bigger tunes. KISS is where home is – this is your new breakfast show where the door is always open. It’s gonna be carnage!”

Chloe added: “I can’t believe I’m saying this – I’m joining KISS! While I know I’ve got big shoes to fill, stepping into the station that I’ve been a HUGE fan of growing up will feel like being launched into my dream job at 100 miles an hour.

“Being the newbie, I know that working alongside Tyler and a world-class team of producers will give me the perfect introduction. I’m more than ready to bring the laughs and every ounce of energy I’ve got for the KISS Breakfast listeners. I’m buzzing!”

As well as hosting the morning show on KISS, Chloe also recently attended Coachella in California, with the star posting smiling snaps with her best friend Millie Court on social media. They were also joined by Love Island: All Stars winner Samie Elishi, and Sophie Piper.

Sunday Brunch is available to stream on Channel 4, while KISS Breakfast airs weekdays from 6am

Manchester United manager Michael Carrick says his side “won’t get carried away” in their pursuit of a Champions League place after they beat Chelsea 1-0 at Stamford Bridge to open up a 10-point gap to sixth place.

MATCH REPORT: Chelsea 0-1 Manchester United

Available to UK users only.

Victoria Beckham is speaking out about her rift with son Brooklyn Peltz Beckham.

In an interview with WSJ Magazine, the former Spice Girl shared insight into her relationship with her son, although she did not refer to him by name.

“I think that we’ve always — we love our children so much,” Beckham said. “We’ve always tried to be the best parents that we can be. And you know, we’ve been in the public eye for more than 30 years right now, and all we’ve ever tried to do is protect our children and love our children. And you know, that’s all I really want to say about it.”

The response comes after Peltz Beckham took to his Instagram Story in January to accuse his parents of “endlessly trying to run” his relationship with his wife, Nicola Peltz Beckham. The 27-year-old claimed his parents “repeatedly pressured and attempted to bribe” him into signing away the rights to his name, that his mother “hijacked” the first dance during his wedding and that his family “values public promotion and endorsements above all else.”

“My wife has been consistently disrespected by my family, no matter how hard we’ve tried to come together as one,” Peltz Beckham wrote. “Family ‘love’ is decided by how much you post on social media, or how quickly you drop everything to show up and pose for a family photo opp, even if it’s at the expense of our professional obligations.”

Peltz Beckham ended the post writing, “I do not want to reconcile with my family. I’m not being controlled, I’m standing up for myself for the first time in my life.”

After the Instagram bombshell, fans believe David Beckham broke his silence while speaking about the power of social media during an interview in January on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

“They make mistakes, but children are allowed to make mistakes. That is how they learn. That is what I try to teach my kids,” David Beckham said. “You sometimes have to let them make those mistakes as well.”

During Peltz Beckham’s birthday in March, his parents wished him happy birthday and shared that they love him on their Instagram Stories.