indictment

The United States Department of Justice has acknowledged that the grand jury reviewing the case against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), did not receive a copy of the final indictment against him.

That revelation on Wednesday came as lawyers for Comey sought to have the indictment thrown out of court.

At a 90-minute hearing in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, Comey’s lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed outright, not only for the prosecutorial missteps but also due to the interventions of President Donald Trump.

Comey is one of three prominent Trump critics to be indicted between late September and mid-October.

The hearing took place before US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, and Comey’s defence team alleged that Trump was using the legal system as a tool for political retribution.

“This is an extraordinary case and it merits an extraordinary remedy,” defence lawyer Michael Dreeben said, calling the indictment “a blatant use of criminal justice to achieve political ends”.

The Justice Department, represented by prosecutor Tyler Lemons, maintained that the indictment met the legal threshold to be heard at trial.

But Lemons did admit, under questioning, that the grand jury that approved the indictment had not seen its final draft.

When Judge Nachmanoff asked Lemons if the grand jury had never seen the final version, the prosecutor conceded, “That is my understanding.”

It was the latest stumble in the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute Comey for allegedly obstructing a congressional investigation and lying to senators while under oath.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to the two charges, and his defence team has led a multipronged effort to see the case nixed over its multiple irregularities.

Scrutiny over grand jury proceedings

Questions over the indictment — and what the grand jury had or had not seen — had been brewing since last week.

On November 13, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie raised questions about a span of time when it appeared that there appeared to be “no court reporter present” during the grand jury proceedings.

Then, on Tuesday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick took the extraordinary step of calling for the grand jury materials to be released to the Comey defence team, citing “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps”.

They included misleading statements from prosecutors, the use of search warrants pertaining to a separate case, and the fact that the grand jury likely did not review the final indictment in full.

Separately, in Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Nachmanoff pressed acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan about who saw the final indictment.

After repeated questions, she, too, admitted that only the foreperson of the grand jury and a second grand juror were present for the returning of the indictment.

Halligan oversaw the three indictments against the Trump critics: Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

All three have denied wrongdoing, and all three have argued that their prosecution is part of a campaign of political vengeance.

Spotlight on Trump-Comey feud

Wednesday’s hearing focused primarily on establishing that argument, with Comey’s lawyers pointing to statements Trump made pushing for the indictments.

Comey’s defence team pointed to the tense relationship between their client and Trump, stretching back to the president’s decision to fire Comey from his job as FBI director in 2017.

Comey had faced bipartisan criticism for FBI investigations into the 2016 election, which Trump ultimately won.

Trump, for example, accused the ex-FBI leader of going easy on his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, calling him a “slime ball”, a “phony” and “a real nut job”.

“FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds,” Trump wrote on social media in May 2017.

Comey, meanwhile, quickly established himself as a prominent critic of the Trump administration.

“I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president,” Comey told ABC News in 2018.

He added that a president must “embody respect” and adhere to basic values like truth-telling. “This president is not able to do that,” Comey said.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Comey’s defence also pointed to the series of events leading up to the former FBI director’s indictment.

Last September, Trump posted on social media a message to Attorney General Pam Bondi, calling Comey and James “guilty as hell” and encouraging her not to “delay any longer” in seeking their indictments.

That message was “effectively an admission that this is a political prosecution”, according to Dreeben, Comey’s lawyer.

Shortly after the message was posted online, Halligan was appointed as acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

She replaced a prosecutor, Erik Siebert, who had reportedly declined to indict Comey and others for lack of evidence. Trump had denounced him as a “woke RINO”, an acronym that stands for “Republican in name only”.

Dreeben argued that switcheroo also signalled Trump’s vindictive intent and his spearheading of the Comey indictment.

But Lemons, representing the Justice Department, told Judge Nachmanoff that Comey “was not indicted at the direction of the president of the United States or any other government official”.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Justice Department acknowledged in court Wednesday the grand jury that charged former FBI Director James Comey was not presented with a copy of the final indictment, a concession that may further imperil a prosecution already subject to multiple challenges and demands for its dismissal.

The revelation is the latest indication of a troubled presentation of the case to the grand jury by an inexperienced and hastily appointed U.S. attorney named to the job just days earlier by President Trump.

Concerns about the process surfaced earlier in the week when a different judge in the case said there was no record in the transcript he had reviewed of the grand jury reviewing the indictment that was actually presented against Comey.

Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney in charge of the case, said under questioning that only the foreperson of the grand jury and a second grand juror were present for the returning of the indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges accusing him of making a false statement and obstructing Congress and has denied any wrongdoing.

The Justice Department has denied that the prosecution was vindictive or selective and insists that the allegations support the indictment.

Trump fired Comey as FBI director in May 2017 as Comey was overseeing an FBI investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. The two have been publicly at odds ever since, with Trump deriding Comey as “a weak and untruthful slime ball” and calling for his prosecution.

Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press.

A magistrate judge in the United States has issued a stern rebuke to the administration of President Donald Trump, criticising its handling of the indictment against a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), James Comey.

On Monday, Judge William Fitzpatrick of Alexandria, Virginia, made the unusual decision to order the release of all grand jury materials related to the indictment.

Normally, grand jury materials are kept secret to protect witnesses, defendants and jurors in cases of grave federal crimes.

But in Comey’s case, Fitzpatrick ruled there was “a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law”, and that greater transparency was therefore required.

He cited several irregularities in the case, ranging from how evidence was obtained to alleged misstatements from prosecutors that could have swayed the grand jury.

“The procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct,” Fitzpatrick wrote in his 24-page decision.

Fitzpatrick clarified that his decision does not render the grand jury materials public. But they will be provided to Comey’s defence team, as the former FBI director seeks to have the indictment tossed.

“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote, underscoring the unusual nature of the proceedings.

“However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.”

Scrutiny of US Attorney Halligan

The decision is the latest stumble for interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Trump whom he then appointed as a top federal prosecutor.

A specialist in insurance law with no prosecutorial background, Halligan was tapped earlier this year to replace acting US Attorney Erik Siebert in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Trump has indicated he fired Siebert over disagreements about Justice Department investigations.

According to media reports, Siebert had refrained from seeking indictments against prominent Trump critics, such as Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing insufficient evidence.

But that appears to have frustrated the president. Trump went so far as to call for Comey’s and James’s prosecutions on social media, as well as that of Democratic Senator Adam Schiff.

“They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote in a post addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”

Halligan took up her post as acting US attorney on September 22. By September 25, she had filed her first major indictment, against Comey.

It charged Comey with making a “false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” to the US Senate, thereby obstructing a congressional inquiry.

A second indictment, against James, was issued on October 9. And a third came on October 16, targeting former national security adviser John Bolton, another prominent Trump critic.

All three individuals have denied wrongdoing and have sought to have their cases dismissed. Each has also accused President Trump of using the legal system for political retribution against perceived adversaries.

Monday’s court ruling is not the first time Halligan’s indictments have come under scrutiny, though.

Just last week, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie heard petitions from James and Comey questioning whether Halligan’s appointment as US attorney was legal.

As she weighed the petitions last Thursday, she questioned why there was a gap in the grand jury record for Comey’s indictment, where no court reporter appeared to be present.

Inside Fitzpatrick’s ruling

Fitzpatrick raised the same issue in his ruling on Monday. He questioned whether the transcript and audio recording of the grand jury deliberations were, in fact, complete.

He pointed out that the grand jury in Comey’s case was originally presented with a three-count indictment, which it rejected. Those deliberations started at about 4:28pm local time.

But by 6:40pm, the grand jury had allegedly weighed a second indictment and found that there was probable cause for two of the three counts.

Fitzpatrick said that the span of time between those two points was not “sufficient” to “draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate”.

Either the court record was incomplete, Fitzpatrick said, or the grand jury weighed an indictment that had not been fully presented in court.

The judge also acknowledged questions about how evidence had been obtained in the Comey case.

The Trump administration was facing a five-year statute of limitations in the Comey case, expiring on September 30. The indictment pertains to statements Comey made before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020.

To quickly find evidence for the indictment, Fitzpatrick said that federal prosecutors appear to have used warrants that were issued for a different case.

Those warrants, however, were limited to an investigation into Daniel Richman, an associate of Comey who was probed for the alleged theft of government property and the unlawful gathering of national security information.

No charges were filed in the Richman case, and the investigation was closed in 2021.

“The Richman materials sat dormant with the FBI until the summer of 2025, when the Bureau chose to rummage through them again,” Fitzpatrick said.

He said the federal government’s use of the warrants could violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits the unreasonable search and seizure of evidence. He described the Justice Department’s actions as “cavalier” and asserted that no precautions were taken to protect privileged information.

“Inexplicably, the government elected not to seek a new warrant for the 2025 search, even though the 2025 investigation was focused on a different person, was exploring a fundamentally different legal theory, and was predicated on an entirely different set of criminal offenses,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

He speculated that prosecutors may not have sought a new warrant because the delay would have allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the Comey case.

“The Court recognizes that a failure to seek a new warrant under these circumstances is highly unusual,” he said.

Fitzpatrick also raised concerns that statements federal prosecutors made to the grand jury may have been misleading.

Many of those statements were redacted in Fitzpatrick’s ruling. But he described them as “fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the grand jury process”.

One statement, he said, “may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jury that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government’s evidence”.

Another appeared to suggest that the grand jury “did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause” — and that more evidence would be presented later on.

Calling for the release of the grand jury records on Monday was an “extraordinary remedy” for these issues, Fitzpatrick conceded.

But it was necessary, given “the prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings”, he ultimately decided.

ATLANTA — The fate of the Georgia election interference case against President Trump and others is now in the hands of a new prosecutor who has to decide how he is going to move forward with the sprawling indictment.

After courts removed Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis over an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she had chosen to lead the case, it was up to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia to name someone to take over. Council Executive Director Pete Skandalakis said Friday that he would handle the case himself after he was unable to find anyone else willing to do it.

The indictment against Trump and 18 others was returned by a grand jury in August 2023 and uses the state’s anti-racketeering law to allege a wide-ranging conspiracy to illegally overturn Trump’s narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia in the 2020 election.

Here are some things to know about Skandalakis and what might come next for this prosecution.

How did Skandalakis end up with this case?

When a prosecutor recuses or is removed from a case in Georgia, the executive director of the nonpartisan Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council steps in to appoint a substitute prosecutor. Skandalakis, who has led the agency since January 2018, said in an emailed statement that he contacted several prosecutors about taking over the election interference case and they all declined.

The judge overseeing the case had said that if a new prosecutor wasn’t appointed by Friday, he would dismiss the case. Skandalakis said that while he could easily have let the judge’s deadline pass without appointing anyone and allowed the case to be dismissed, he “did not believe that to be the right course of action.”

He acknowledged that he had not had a chance to fully review the case, having only recently received from Willis’ office 101 boxes of documents and an eight-terabyte hard drive with the full investigative file. Appointing himself to the case, he said, “will allow me to complete a comprehensive review and make an informed decision regarding how best to proceed.”

Prior to his time at the council, Skandalakis spent about 25 years as the elected Republican district attorney for the Coweta Judicial Circuit, southwest of Atlanta. But former Gwinnett County Dist. Atty. Danny Porter, who has known Skandalakis for more than 40 years, said they shared a philosophy that the district attorney’s office should be nonpartisan.

“I wouldn’t put too much weight on the fact that he ran as a Republican,” Porter said. “I feel certain that he’s going to do what he said he’s going to do and give it a fair and transparent review and come to conclusions based on the law and the facts.”

Skandalakis is no stranger to sensitive high-profile cases. He took on the investigation into the June 2020 shooting death of Rayshard Brooks, a Black man, by a white police officer after Willis recused her office from the case. He ultimately decided that the two officers involved had acted reasonably, and he declined to pursue charges.

What happens next?

Skandalakis will continue to review the case file to decide how he wants to proceed. The judge has set a Dec. 1 status hearing and said the prosecution should be prepared to say at that time whether it intends to seek a new indictment.

Skandalakis has declined to comment beyond the statement he released Friday. But Porter, who has served as a substitute prosecutor, said the first step is generally to get the case filed, which Skandalakis has done. Then, Porter said, it is not improper to have a discussion with the removed prosecutor about their summary of the case, but that should be the last contact between the two prosecution teams about the case.

Then the substitute prosecutor would start from scratch, figuring out how the case is organized, determining the budget and resources needed and figuring out how to handle it.

The size of this case makes all that a “nearly impossible task for one person to do,” Porter said. While Skandalakis has a “great staff” with some really talented prosecutors, they all have other cases on their plates.

The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council has a tight budget, and the state Legislature is dominated by Republicans, many loyal to Trump, who are unlikely to grant any special appropriations for this prosecution. But Skandalakis could look for money elsewhere to hire contract attorneys and cover other expenses, Porter said.

Then Skandalakis will have to decide whether he wants to continue on the course that Willis had charted, pursue only some of the charges or dismiss the case.

“I think the case as it’s indicted is completely untryable,” Porter said, adding that he would try to slim it down, either by seeking a new indictment or asking the judge to sever some counts to break it down into smaller cases, Porter said.

What is in the indictment?

The indictment includes charges related to a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger during which Trump urged the state’s top elections official to help him “find” the votes he needed to win. Other charges have to do with a getting a slate of Republican electors to falsely declare that Trump won the state, allegations of harassment of a Georgia election worker and a breach of election equipment in a rural south Georgia county.

Four of the 19 people charged pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors in the months following the indictment. Trump and the other 14 people charged have all pleaded not guilty. It seems unlikely that any action against Trump could proceed while he is in office — given U.S. Justice Department policy and a Supreme Court ruling that shield a president from prosecution — but the others do not have that protection.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

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 alleged that 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, Janet Wipper, was fired by the Newsom administration, and her chief deputy resigned and alleged that she was doing so to protest 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 for 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 last week, Calabasas attorney Alan Goldstein, who handled a sexual harassment suit against Activision, said he received call from an FBI agent looking to probe 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 pandemic, 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, Williamson, shortly after starting as Newsom’s chief of staff, 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 between 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, Mcluskie 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 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.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff was arrested Wednesday on federal charges that allege she siphoned $225,000 out of a dormant state campaign account and wrote off $1 million for luxury handbags and private jet travel as business expenses on her tax returns.

According to the 23-count indictment, unsealed Wednesday morning, political consultant Dana Williamson and her employees Greg Campbell and Sean McCluskie billed the dormant campaign account for bogus consulting services through shell companies they controlled starting in the spring of 2022.

Many of those payments went to McCluskie’s wife, federal authorities allege.

The indictment does not name the California politician whose campaign fund the trio allegedly drained.

Williamson left her job at the statehouse last December.

“Today’s charges are the result of three years of relentless investigative work, in partnership with IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” said FBI Sacramento Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel. “The FBI will remain vigilant in its efforts to uncover fraud and corruption, ensuring our government systems are held to the highest standards.”

Williamson is scheduled to make an initial court appearance Wednesday afternoon in Sacramento.

Cleveland Guardians closer Emmanuel Clase and starter Luis Ortiz face federal charges of fraud, bribery and conspiracy for allegedly intentionally throwing pitches outside the strike zone so bettors could wager correctly on whether pitches would be balls or strikes.

The 23-page indictment filed in the Eastern District of New York outlines several incidents, including one this season that involved the Dodgers.

During a game at Cleveland on May 28, the indictment states that Clase threw a pitch that was meant to be a ball, but Dodgers outfielder Andy Pages swung and missed, resulting in a strike. Clase retired the side in order for his 11th save of the season in Cleveland’s 7-4 victory.

About 20 minutes later, the indictment states that “Bettor-1” sent a message to Clase of a GIF of a man hanging himself with toilet paper. Clase allegedly responded to “Bettor-1” with a GIF of a sad puppy dog face.

The indictment states that from 2023 to 2025, bettors “won at least $400,000 from the Betting Platforms on pitches thrown by” Clase.

Ortiz joined the scheme in 2025, according to the indictment: “Ortiz agreed to throw balls (instead of strikes) on certain pitches in exchange for bribes or kickbacks.” Clase allegedly served as middle man between the bettors and Ortiz.

The indictment states the alleged scheme started as early as May 2023 with Clase, who purposely threw pitches outside the strike zone so bettors could win proposition bets.

“The bettors wagered on the speed and type of Clase’s pitches, based on information they knew in advance by coordinating with Clase, sometimes even during MLB games,” the indictment said. “Clase often threw these pitches on the first pitch of an at-bat. To ensure certain pitches were called as balls, Clase often threw many of them in the dirt, well outside the strike zone.”

Clase, 27, is one of the top closers in baseball. The right-hander from the Dominican Republic led the American League in saves in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and has a career earned-run average of 1.88 to go with 182 saves.

Clase signed a five-year, $20-million contract in April 2022 that included a $2-million signing bonus. The deal also includes $10 million club options for 2027 and 2028.

Ortiz, also from the Dominican Republic, was traded to the Guardians before the 2025 season after spending three seasons with the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Both pitchers were placed on non-disciplinary paid leave in July when MLB launched an investigation and were moved to the restricted list when the regular season ended. The Ohio Casino Control Commission also started an investigation.

If convicted on all charges, both pitchers face up to 65 years in prison.

ESPN reported that the betting-integrity firm IC360 sent alerts to sportsbook operators regarding two pitches thrown by Ortiz in June. The first came when Ortiz spiked a slider in the dirt to open the second inning against the Seattle Mariners. The second came when Ortiz opened the third inning against the St. Louis Cardinals with a slider that flew to the backstop.

The Guardians released the following statement: “We are aware of the recent law enforcement action. We will continue to fully cooperate with both law enforcement and Major League Baseball as their investigations continue.”