Politics
Indictment of ex-Newsom aide hints at feds’ probe into state’s earlier investigation of video game giant
An indictment unveiled this week charging Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff with political corruption threw California’s top political circles into chaos — and stirred speculation in the state capital about what triggered the federal investigation.
Authorities have not revealed any targets beyond Dana Williamson and two other influential political operatives associated with the state’s most powerful Democrats, all of whom are accused of fraud and siphoning campaign funds for personal use.
But details contained in the indictment and other public records indicate that the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice had a keen interest in Williamson and other operatives’ involvement in the handling of a legal case involving “Corporation 1.” The facts revealed about “Corporation 1” match details of a controversial sex discrimination investigation that the state of California led into one of the world’s largest video game companies, Santa-Monica based Activision Blizzard Inc.
Williamson — an influential deal-maker and one of the state’s premier Democratic political consultants before and after she ran Newsom’s office — was arrested on corruption charges Wednesday. Two longtime associates, lobbyist Greg Campbell, a former high-level staffer in the California Assembly, and Sean McCluskie, a longtime aide to former state Atty. Gen. and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, have agreed to plead guilty to related charges.
After Williamson pleaded not guilty in a tearful court appearance Wednesday, her attorney, McGregor Scott, said that federal authorities had charged his client only after first approaching her to seek help with a probe they were conducting into Newsom, the nature of which remains unclear. Williamson declined to cooperate.
The governor has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Still, Republicans already are using the indictments to attack Newsom, who has openly said he is considering a run for president in 2028.
Williamson’s attorney did not offer any specifics on what federal officials may have been investigating.
But numerous threads in the indictment echo details in the Activision saga.
Williamson and Campbell both worked as advisors to Activision Blizzard, according to financial disclosures on file with the state. Williamson reported receiving income from the company prior to her appointment in Newsom’s office, state records show. According to records first filed earlier this year, Campbell disclosed that his lobbying firm started being paid by Activision around the time Williamson joined the governor’s office. Activision reported paying $240,000 to his firm in 2023 and 2024. The amount Williamson was paid from Activision was not disclosed.
Activision officials did not respond to emails requesting comment. Lawyers for Williamson, Campbell and McCluskie also did not respond or declined to comment.
The state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing in 2021 sued Activision Blizzard, which distributes video games such as “Call of Duty” and “Candy Crush,” alleging that company officials discriminated against women, paid them less than men and ignored reports of egregious sexual harassment.
The complaint alleges: The company “fostered a pervasive ‘frat boy’ workplace culture that continues to thrive. In the office, women are subjected to ‘cube crawls’ in which male employees drink copious amounts of alcohol as they ‘crawl’ their way through various cubicles in the office and often engage in inappropriate behavior toward female employees. Male employees proudly come into work hungover, play video games for long periods of time during work while delegating their responsibilities to female employees, engage in banter about their sexual encounters, talk openly about female bodies, and joke about rape.”
Activision officials denied the allegations.
The allegations also were investigated by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Activision Blizzard agreed to a consent decree, approved in March 2022, with the agency that required the company to set up an $18-million fund for employees who experienced sexual harassment or discrimination, pregnancy discrimination or retaliation.
Just weeks later, the case drew national attention again when the lawyer overseeing the case for the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Janette Wipper, was fired by the Newsom administration, and her chief deputy resigned and alleged that she was doing so to protest alleged interference of Newsom’s office in the investigation.
“The Office of the Governor repeatedly demanded advance notice of litigation strategy and of next steps in the litigation,” the deputy, Melanie Proctor, wrote to her colleagues. “As we continued to win in state court, this interference increased, mimicking the interests of Activision’s counsel.”
A member of Activision’s board of directors contributed $40,200 to Newsom’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign, and an additional $100,000 to a committee opposing the 2021 recall campaign against Newsom — an effort that failed.
Newsom’s office denied it was meddling. “Claims of interference by our office are categorically false,” Erin Mellon, Newsom’s then-communications director, said at the time.
As case continued to grind through Los Angeles Superior Court, the company stepped up its lobbying presence in Sacramento, according to disclosures filed with the state. Documents show Activision began paying Campbell starting in late 2022 to lobby on its behalf.
Around this time, Newsom announced that he was hiring Williamson to be his chief of staff.
In December 2023 the state announced it had reached a settlement agreement with Activision for $54 million, with the bulk of the funds going to compensate women who had been underpaid. The company did not admit any wrongdoing.
The FBI has made inquires about the Activision settlement, though the focus of the inquiry is unclear. When reached recently, Calabasas attorney Alan Goldstein, who handled a sexual harassment suit against Activision, said he received a call from an FBI agent looking to investigate California’s settlement — but that he couldn’t recall a “substantive conversation.”
Federal investigators were also looking at how Campbell, Williamson and another Sacramento political consultant, Alexis Podesta, conducted their affairs. In unveiling their charges this week, the U.S. Attorney’s office said the investigation began more than three years ago. All three consultants were members of the Sacramento-based Collaborative, a cooperative of top Democratic political operatives.
Podesta from 2017 to 2020 served as secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, which included the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing — the agency that launched the investigation of Activision in 2018.
Williamson received a federal subpoena for information about her handling of a government loan her business had received during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, according to details in the indictment. The indictment accused Williamson of spending vast sums on luxury items — including a Gucci bag, Chanel earrings and a $150,000 Mexican birthday vacation and party, plus yacht rental and private jet travel — and then claimed them as business expenses on her taxes.
She and Campbell had also allegedly conspired with McCluskie to siphon money from Becerra’s dormant campaign account to pay McCuskie’s wife for a fake, “no-show” job working for Williamson. When Williamson went to work for Newsom, the indictment alleges, Podesta took over handling the pass through payments.
By June 2024, someone in the circle was cooperating with federal investigators and wearing a wire, recording Williamson’s private conversations, according to transcripts included in the indictment.
On Nov.14, 2024, according to the indictment, FBI agents interviewed Williamson, questioning her about the Becerra campaign funds and about the pandemic funds.
Investigators also asked her about her actions “while serving in public office to influence the litigation involving the State of California and a former client — Corporation 1,” according to the indictment. The indictment doesn’t identify Corporation 1, but details match the Activision litigation. The indictment notes that Corporation 1 was Williamson’s former client and that it was involved in settlement discussions over a lawsuit with the state in 2023. It also references a state lawyer who had been fired in connection with the litigation.
Williamson, according to the indictment, told the FBI she did not pass any inside information to Campbell or other associates outside the government. But based on their recorded conversations, the indictment said, investigators believed that was not true.
They alleged that in January 2023, shortly after Williamson started as Newsom’s chief of staff, she revealed to Podesta that she had “told a high level government attorney to … get [the case] settled.”
The indictment notes that Corporation 1 was not only Williamson’s former client, but also now Podesta’s current client.
In June 2024, Williamson complained to Podesta that someone had submitted a California Public Records Act request seeking information about meetings and communications between Newsom officials and the company, according to the indictment.
Proctor, the state attorney who resigned in 2022 and had alleged that the Newsom administration was meddling in the Activision case, posted on her Bluesky social media account in July that she had submitted a public records request on May 29, 2024. She also posted the response from Newsom’s office, showing a meeting in January 2024 in the governor’s office among Williamson, Podesta and Robert Kotick, the former chief executive of Activision.
In their June conversation, according to the indictment, Williamson told Podesta, “I just wanted to alert you to the PRAS that we’re starting to get,” the indictment stated. PRAs refer to public records requests.
“Yeah. Ugh. F— her. They really don’t know who they are messing with,” Podesta responded.
“They really don’t,” Williamson said.
Podesta, who is identified in the indictment as “Co-Conspirator 2,” was not charged. On Thursday she sent a message to numerous associates offering her take on the situation.
“While I cannot discuss the details of the ongoing investigation, I want to state plainly that I have always conducted myself — and my business — with integrity.” She also said that she continued to “cooperate fully with federal authorities.”
On Friday afternoon, McCluskie and Campbell appeared in federal court in Sacramento to be arraigned on conspiracy charges in back-to-back proceedings.
Both men had previously reached plea agreements with prosecutors and will be back in court to enter those pleas, McCluskie in late November and Campbell in early December.
Prosecutors did not seek detention for either man, but they were ordered to surrender their passports and avoid associating with other alleged co-conspirators.
In brief remarks to reporters, Campbell’s attorney, Todd Pickles, said that his client “takes full accountability for his actions” and would “in appropriate time further discuss the charges.” But, Pickles noted, those charges “do not include Mr. Campbell engaging in advocacy or lobbying on behalf of any client.”
Times staff writers Katie King and Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.
Politics
Maryland to study slavery reparations after lawmakers override Dem governor’s veto
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Maryland General Assembly on Tuesday voted to override Gov. Wes Moore’s veto of a bill creating a reparations commission, clearing the way for the state to begin formally studying how to address the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination.
The Senate voted 31-14 to override the veto, while the House approved the override 93–35, exceeding the three-fifths majorities required in both chambers.
Moore initially vetoed Senate Bill (SB) 587 in May, arguing that Maryland had already conducted extensive studies on the legacy of slavery and should focus instead on policies that directly narrow racial disparities.
In his veto letter to Senate President Bill Ferguson, Moore noted that Maryland has already launched numerous commissions and study groups over the past 25 years, including one examining lynching and the state’s history of slavery.
DEMOCRATS SILENT ON ILLEGAL ALIEN REGISTERED TO VOTE IN BLUE STATE
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore testifies in support of legislation aimed at making housing more affordable and protecting renters during a bill hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024, in Annapolis, Md. (AP Photo/Brian Witte)
Del. Matthew Morgan, R–St. Mary’s County, spoke on the House floor Tuesday ahead of the vote, calling out his Democratic colleagues for talking about affordability while preparing to set up a commission for “race-bait handouts.”
“This bill betrays the original intention, the unifying event of the civil rights movement. It’s immoral and it’s fiscally ruinous to this state and it sends a message to the generations out there now in Maryland that if you’re concerned about fairness, dignity, opportunity in this state — to flee Maryland,” said Morgan.
HOUSE DEMOCRAT TO INTRODUCE REPARATIONS PUSH, DECLARES ‘MORAL OBLIGATION’ TO SEND TRILLIONS TO BLACK AMERICANS
Del. Terri Hill, D–Howard County, urged colleagues to override the veto, calling the creation of the commission a decision “we still feel is the right one.”
Senate members wave to Girl Scouts in the balcony on the last day of the legislative session known as sine die on April 9, 2018. (Katherine Frey/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
With the veto override, SB 587 will now establish a commission to weigh possible forms of reparations, including official statements of apology, monetary compensation, property tax rebates, child-care support, debt forgiveness and higher education tuition waivers and reimbursements.
A preliminary report is due Jan. 1, 2027, with a final report required Nov. 1, 2027. The commission is set to expire in the summer of 2028.
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS FIRST IN US TO PAY REPARATIONS TO BLACK RESIDENTS
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland hailed the override in a statement posted to social media.
“This landmark action establishes a rigorous and comprehensive plan for reparations and marks Maryland’s first-ever step toward reparations,” the statement read in part. “At a time of growing attacks on diversity and equity, today’s action reaffirms our shared commitment to truth-telling, accountability, and meaningful progress for Black Marylanders.”
Politics
Warner Bros. rejects Paramount’s hostile bid, accuses Ellison family of failing to put money into the deal
Warner Bros. Discovery has sharply rejected Paramount’s hostile offer, alleging the $108-billion deal carries substantial risks because the Larry Ellison family has failed to put real money behind its bid for Warner’s legendary movie studio, HBO and CNN.
Paramount “has consistently misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” Warner Bros. Discovery’s board wrote Wednesday in a letter to its shareholders filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.
“It does not, and never has,” the Warner board said.
Warner’s board voted unanimously that Paramount’s hostile bid “was not in the best interests” of its shareholders.
For Warner, what was missing was a clear declaration from Paramount that the Ellison family had agreed to commit funding for the deal. Paramount last week told Warner stockholders that it would pay them $30 a share — or $78 billion for the entire company. Paramount also has said it would absorb Warner’s debt, making the overall deal worth $108-billion.
A Paramount representative was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.
The Warner auction has taken several nasty turns. Last week, Paramount launched its hostile takeover campaign for Warner after losing the bidding war to Netflix. Warner board members on Dec. 4 had unanimously approved Netflix’s $82.7-billion deal for the Warner Bros. film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max.
In its letter, the Warner board reaffirmed its support for Netflix’s $27.75 a share proposal, saying it represented the best deal for shareholders. Warner board members urged investors not to tender their shares to Paramount.
Board members said they were concerned that Paramount’s financing appeared shaky and the Ellison family’s assurances were far from ironclad. Instead Paramount’s proposal contained “gaps, loopholes and limitations,” Warner said, including troubling caveats, such as saying in documents that Paramount “reserve[d] the right to amend the offer in any respect.”
The Warner board argued that its shareholders could be left holding the bag.
Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has argued his $78-billion deal is superior to Netflix’s proposal.
(Evan Agostini / Evan Agostini/invision/ap)
Paramount Chairman David Ellison has championed Paramount’s strength in recent weeks saying his company’s bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and television studios, was backed by his wealthy family, headed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men.
Ellison sent a letter last week to Warner shareholders, asking for their support. The tech scion wrote his family and RedBird Capital Partners would be strong stewards of Warner’s iconic properties, which include Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo, “The Lord of the Rings,” and HBO’s “Game of Thrones.”
Ellison wrote that Paramount delivered “an equity commitment from the Ellison family trust, which contains over $250 billion of assets,” including more than 1 billion Oracle shares.
In regulatory filings, Paramount has disclosed that, for the equity portion of the deal, it planned to rely on $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as well as $11.8 billion from the Ellison family (which also holds the controlling shares in Paramount).
This week, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners private equity firm pulled out of Paramount’s financing team.
Paramount’s bid would also need more than $60 billion in debt financing.
Paramount has made six offers for Warner Bros., and its “most recent proposal includes a $40.65 billion equity commitment, for which there is no Ellison family commitment of any kind,” the Warner board wrote.
“Instead, they propose that [shareholders] rely on an unknown and opaque revocable trust for the certainty of this crucial deal funding,” the board said, noting that a revocable trust could always be changed. “A revocable trust is no replacement for a secured commitment by a controlling stockholder,” the board’s letter said.
Throughout the negotiations, Paramount, which trades under the PSKY ticker, failed to present a solid financing commitment from Larry Ellison — despite Warner’s bankers telling them that one was necessary, the board said.
“Despite … their own ample resources, as well as multiple assurances by PSKY during our strategic review process that such a commitment was forthcoming – the Ellison family has chosen not to backstop the PSKY offer,” Warner’s board wrote.
David Ellison has insisted Paramount’s offer of $30 a share was superior to Netflix’s winning bid.
Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, while Netflix has made a deal to take Warner’s studios, its spacious lot in Burbank, HBO and HBO Max streaming service.
Warner plans to spin off its linear cable channels, including CNN, HGTV, Cartoon Network and TBS, early next year.
Paramount’s lawyers have argued that Warner tipped the auction to favor Netflix.
Paramount, which until recently enjoyed warm relations with President Trump, has long argued that its deal represents a more certain path to gain regulatory approvals. Trump’s Department of Justice would consider any anti-trust ramifications of the deal, and in the past, Trump has spoken highly of the Ellisons.
However, Warner’s board argued that Paramount might be providing too rosy a view.
“Despite PSKY’s media statements to the contrary, the Board does not believe there is a material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger,” the Warner board wrote. “The Board carefully considered the federal, state, and international regulatory risks for both the Netflix merger and the PSKY offer with its regulatory advisors.”
The board noted that Netflix agreed to pay a record $5.8 billion if its deal fails to clear the regulatory hurdles.
Paramount has offered a $5 billion termination fee.
Should Warner abandon the transaction with Netflix, it would owe Netflix a $2.8 billion break-up fee.
Warner also pointed to Paramount’s promises to Wall Street that it would shave $9 billion in costs from the combined companies. Paramount is in the process of making $3 billion in cuts since the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners took the helm of the company in August.
Paramount has promised another $6 billion in cuts should it win Warner Bros.
“These targets are both ambitious from an operational perspective and would make Hollywood weaker, not stronger,” the Warner board wrote.
Politics
Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video
new video loaded: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video
transcript
transcript
Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video
Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.
-
“It Is the 22nd bipartisan briefing we’ve had on a highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons, drugs to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long. So we’re proud of what we’re doing, able to lay it out very directly to these senators and soon to the House. But it’s all classified. We can’t talk about it now. But in keeping with longstanding Department of War policy, Department of Defense policy, of course, we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public. H.A.S.C. and S.A.S.C. and appropriate committees will see it, but not the general public.” “I’ll be introducing a live unanimous consent request to release the video both to the full Congress, but also to the American people. The public should see this, and I hope that we’ll have support to make it public. I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think American people should see this video and all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”
By Meg Felling
December 16, 2025
-
Iowa3 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa4 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine1 day agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans
-
Maryland3 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology7 days agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota3 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota