Lawyer for ex-Newsom aide says FBI cooperator wore a wire in widening corruption probe

A lawyer for a former top aide to California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the FBI had a cooperator in the governor’s political orbit who wore a wire and secretly recorded conversations as part of a federal public corruption investigation that later expanded to include the governor and his wife. The claim was reported Tuesday by the New York Post and was attributed to Dana Williamson’s attorney, McGregor Scott.

According to Williamson’s lawyer, Alexis Podesta, a Sacramento-based consultant and a Newsom appointee, wore the wire while Williamson did not, with the disclosure framed as explaining why investigators were able to intercept phone calls from some Sacramento political figures. The attorney said Williamson’s case-related disclosures had prompted surprise among people who, the report said, had little or no connection to Williamson.

The report says the wire-wearing period dates back to June 2024, before the probe’s scope, later described as widening. It also says that after receiving letters last fall, some political insiders and lobbyists learned that the FBI had access to intercepted calls during certain periods, according to interviews and statements cited by the Post.

Williamson previously pleaded guilty in federal court to fraud and tax charges in May, according to the Post’s account, and the attorney’s statement links that earlier cooperation and case timeline to the alleged infiltration described. The reporting also says the investigation into Newsom and his wife was announced by Newsom last month, along with details that members of the governor’s inner circle were under federal investigation.

Alexis Podesta, as described in the report, has held multiple roles in California Democratic administrations and later became a lobbyist and government affairs consultant. The Post also described her as having been appointed to the board of the State Compensation Insurance Fund during the Newsom administration, and it said she remained in that role while becoming a central figure in the federal probe from Williamson’s perspective.

In comments reported by the Post, Assemblymember Josh Hoover said he was among those who received FBI letters even though he had not spoken with either Williamson or Podesta, adding to the report’s account that intercepted communications were broader than the immediate circle tied directly to the earlier plea. The lawyer’s remarks were presented as a reason that some recipients could have received letters despite a limited connection to the case.

The FBI and the parties referenced were not identified through an official filing in the reporting provided here. As of publication, the claims about the wire, the timeline, and the explanation for intercepted-call notifications were attributed to Williamson’s attorney and carried in the Post and in a separate item that surfaced Tuesday. Any further procedural consequences would depend on subsequent court filings, agency actions, or related charging documents in the federal case.

Williamson’s attorney’s explanation, if substantiated in court records, could become relevant to disputes over the scope of any surveillance and the due process rights of people who received notifications based on intercepted communications. It could also affect how prosecutors and defense attorneys characterize the roles of alleged cooperators within the federal investigation’s evolution, particularly around when and how the investigation moved from one target to broader scrutiny of Newsom’s circle.