California’s governor dismissed an appointee as “not in his orbit” while she wore an FBI wire and stayed on a taxpayer-paid state board. Story Highlights Alexis Podesta was appointed to a California state board by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020. Podesta’s lawyer says she is “Co-Conspirator 2” in a federal probe tied to Newsom’s former chief of staff and that she cooperated with investigators. Reports say Podesta secretly recorded conversations for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and remains on the board with paid compensation. Newsom’s office called questions about keeping her on the board a personnel matter and declined further comment. What Sparked The Fight Over “Orbit” And Accountability Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2020 appointment placed Alexis Podesta on the State Compensation Insurance Fund board, citing her years leading the state’s Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency as credentials. The appointment looked routine until a federal corruption case named Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, and referenced an uncharged “Co-Conspirator 2.” Podesta’s attorney says that person is Podesta and that she cooperated with federal agents, who later secured charges against Williamson, who pleaded not guilty at first and later faced fraud counts. Coverage from multiple outlets says Podesta also wore a recording device for the Federal Bureau of Investigation during part of the probe. Those reports add that she still serves on the state board and receives about sixty-one thousand dollars a year for that service. Newsom’s team has declined to explain why she remains on the board, describing it as a personnel matter. That silence fuels a broader worry that insiders get protected while the public is left guessing who is accountable and why. How The Money Trail And Roles Intersect Federal charging documents focus on a scheme to drain money from a dormant campaign account linked to former California official Xavier Becerra. Reports say Williamson and others routed payments through shell companies between 2022 and 2024. Podesta’s lawyer says she took over managing the account’s payments after Williamson joined the governor’s office, did not see anything unusual, and stopped payments when warned they were improper. The lawyer says she should not be charged and has fully cooperated with investigators. The Los Angeles Times reported the criminal case does not implicate Newsom in wrongdoing, even as it touches people once close to his operation. That detail matters. It draws a line between criminal liability and political responsibility. Voters may accept that difference in court. They still may question why an appointee tied to an indictment, even as an uncharged cooperator, continues to draw public pay without a clear review process. Why This Resonates Across The Political Spectrum People on the right see a familiar pattern: insiders serving insiders, with taxpayers footing the bill. People on the left see concentrated power and weak guardrails that invite abuse. Both sides see a lack of sunlight. The simple facts are not in dispute: Newsom appointed Podesta in 2020; her attorney identifies her as “Co-Conspirator 2” and says she cooperated; reports say she wore a wire and remains on the board with compensation. The question is whether government standards match public expectations. Where the bodies are buried in the biggest political and financial scandal in California history: The federal investigation of Greedy Gavin Newsom and his main squeeze "first partner" Jennifer Siebel Newsom and their inner circle, and the prosecution of state operatives linked to… pic.twitter.com/0L3zr0pqBl — Saint James Hartline (@JamesHartline) July 3, 2026 There are limits to what we know. We do not have an official audit of her 2020 vetting. We do not have public FBI records describing her recordings. We do not have a full explanation from the governor’s office beyond “personnel matter”. Until those gaps close, suspicion will grow. Clear steps could help: a public-fit review of board service for anyone tied to active probes, faster disclosure rules, and a simple test—if the public is paying you, the public gets answers. Sources: nypost.com, latimes.com, gov.ca.gov