interview

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.