NY Post89%

FBI infiltrated Gavin Newsom's inner circle by convincing governor's ally to wear a wire: lawyer 60%

By Josh Koehn0%

7/2/2026, 4:09:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 68.1% saturation with 382 hits. Analysis detected 1,625 faulty-reasoning hits from 561 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,802 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.80% of the article peer group.

The FBI had a mole inside Gov. 
Gavin Newsom's political orbit before the agency's corruption probe expanded into the governor and his wife, The Post has learned. 
Democrat insider Alexis Podesta, 45, secretly recorded conversations during the criminal probe into Newsom's then-chief of staff, Dana Williamson, 53, who pleaded guilty to federal fraud and tax charges in May, according to Williamson's lawyer. 
“Alexis wore a wire, and Dana did not,” said McGregor Scott, Williamson’s lawyer and a former US attorney for the Eastern District of California, which is now investigating the Newsoms. 
The disclosure comes as Newsom announced last month that he and his wife  whose nonprofit has been burning through money in recent years  as well as members of the governor’s inner circle are under federal investigation. 
Within hours of that announcement, Newsom blasted out an email to raise money for political action committee. 
Assemblymember Josh Hoover (R-Folsom) told The Post he was among those who received one of the letters even though he had never spoken with either Williamson or Podesta. 
“A lot of people received letters essentially informing us that there were certain periods of time where the FBI was given access to follow phone calls,” Hoover said. 
“I don’t know how these investigations work, but it sounds like they cast a pretty broad net across the Capitol community to see what they could find.” 
Williamson pleaded guilty in May to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, filing a false tax return and making false statements to the FBI. 
Federal prosecutors alleged Williamson and others orchestrated a scheme to siphon roughly $225,000 from a dormant campaign account belonging to former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who’s now the Democratic frontrunner to succeed Newsom as governor. 
Williamson disguised payments as legitimate consulting fees while routing the money to benefit Becerra's former chief of staff, Sean McCluskie. 
Podesta, a longtime Democratic power broker, remains on California's State Compensation Insurance Fund board  where she receives annual compensation of nearly $61,000  after Newsom appointed her in January 2020. 
She previously served as secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency and held senior positions in Gov. 
Jerry Brown’s administration. 
She also worked for PG&E, Disney and the late Sen. 
Dianne Feinstein. 
Podesta has not been charged with a crime, but her attorney, Bill Portanova, has identified her as the uncharged co-conspirator described in the Williamson indictment and confirmed she has cooperated with federal investigators. 
The governor’s office declined The Post’s request for comment on the circumstances involving Podesta, saying it is a personnel matter. 
Podesta and her attorney did not respond to requests for comment. 
Hoover said the growing investigation has only deepened public skepticism around Newsom and the way the governor's office conducts business. 
“All of this stuff just raises so many questions,” he said. 
“What is going on in this administration? 
What types of conversations are being had? 
I think the entire case should be really concerning for the general public. 
It’s really raising a lot of mistrust.” 
He added: “I think it underlines how problematic this current administration is. 
[Newsom] is someone who wants to run for president of the United States. 
It’s really disappointing to see that this is the level of our politics.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Josh Koehn: 3.9%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.1%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Josh Koehn: 5.0%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 6.2%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.8%Josh Koehn: 13.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect19.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.5%Josh Koehn: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Josh Koehn: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias15.2%This article: 68.1%Josh Koehn: 25.9%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias68.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Josh Koehn: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error2.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Josh Koehn: 2.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.5%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 9.8%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 5.6%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.2%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority15.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.9%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.1%Josh Koehn: 7.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization19.1%This article: 5.3%Josh Koehn: 3.2%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring5.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.2%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.3%Josh Koehn: 7.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion12.3%This article: 3.4%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question3.4%This article: 13.4%Josh Koehn: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.5%Josh Koehn: 1.6%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof5.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.3%Josh Koehn: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division2.3%This article: 6.8%Josh Koehn: 2.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.8%Josh Koehn: 1.3%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.8%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.2%Josh Koehn: 2.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote6.2%This article: 8.0%Josh Koehn: 1.9%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.0%This article: 3.9%Josh Koehn: 15.4%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice3.9%This article: 8.7%Josh Koehn: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination8.7%This article: 5.5%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 3.3%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

561 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers39%attributed speech345writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageMcGregor Scott • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 11 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 12 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hoover • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

McGregor Scott

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words14% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+95.7 ptsWriter: 4.3%McGregor Scott: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-10.1 ptsWriter: 10.1%McGregor Scott: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.0 ptsWriter: 9.0%McGregor Scott: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%McGregor Scott: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.