Who were the named co-conspirators in the 2019 federal indictment and what charges did each face?

1. What the indictment explicitly alleges about co‑conspirators and the scheme

The Justice Department’s press release and court documents describe a conspiracy spanning February 2022 to September 2024 in which Williamson and others allegedly funneled roughly $225,000 from a dormant political campaign into an associate’s personal use by routing payments through businesses and disguising them as compensation for work that was not actually performed; the indictment lists four other co‑conspirators alongside Williamson ^[1]. Williamson faces 23 counts including conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice, subscribing to false tax returns, and making false statements — the indictment says the conduct also included creating false, backdated contracts and falsifying documents after receiving a civil subpoena ^[1][2].

2. Sean McCluskie: the named co‑conspirator who pleaded guilty

Federal filings and news reports identify Sean McCluskie — described in reporting as Xavier Becerra’s chief of staff at the time of the alleged conduct — as a central figure who obtained diverted campaign funds for personal use; McCluskie signed a plea agreement on Oct. 30 admitting to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, according to CBS Sacramento and related coverage ^[3][4]. DOJ materials and media accounts characterize McCluskie as the recipient whose personal benefit was the primary aim of the alleged diversion scheme ^[1][4].

3. Greg Campbell and other named figures reported by the press

Several outlets cite Greg Campbell, a Sacramento lobbyist and prominent political consultant, as an alleged participant who coordinated payments through his companies and helped cover up the scheme; The Guardian and CBS Sacramento report Campbell’s name as part of the indictment’s factual narrative, though some outlets note Campbell’s statement that he will address the charges “at the appropriate time” and that the filing “does not include Mr.” (ellipsis in reporting) ^[3][6]. The DOJ release describes the use of business entities and no‑show arrangements, which aligns with press descriptions of Campbell’s alleged operational role ^[1][6].

4. “Co‑Conspirator 2” and reporting that identifies her as Alexis Podesta Podesta

The unsealed indictment refers to a “Co‑Conspirator 2,” an unnamed former public official who purportedly took over Williamson’s role when Williamson joined the governor’s office; PBS and CBS report that the indictment names four other co‑conspirators and explicitly describes the placeholder “Co‑Conspirator 2” ^[2][4]. Local station KCRA reports that Alexis Podesta Podesta’s attorney confirmed she is the unnamed co‑conspirator referenced in court documents, and that she has not been charged and is cooperating with investigators — an important distinction between being named in documents and being indicted ^[5].

5. Who is charged versus who is named or described in court papers

It is crucial to separate indictment defendants from individuals described within indictment narratives. Dana Williamson is the defendant charged on 23 counts; Sean McCluskie is a named co‑conspirator who has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy count; other figures such as Greg Campbell and the person referenced as “Co‑Conspirator 2” are named or described in media accounts and court filings, but reporting indicates that Campbell’s precise charging status is not uniformly stated across sources and that Alexis Podesta Podesta, while identified in local reporting as the unnamed co‑conspirator, has not been criminally charged as of those reports and is said to be cooperating ^[1][3][5].

6. Legal exposure and limits of the public record

DOJ public material quantifies potential statutory penalties for the charged counts against Williamson — up to 20 years and $250,000 fines for each bank/wire fraud count, plus separate penalties for obstruction and tax counts — but also emphasizes that charges are allegations and defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty ^[1]. Available sources do not provide a full, publicly accessible charging list for every person the indictment mentions; they consistently say the federal indictment lists four other co‑conspirators and that some co‑conspirators have pleaded or are cooperating, but they do not uniformly show criminal charges for each named individual ^[2][4].

7. Competing narratives and potential agendas in reporting

National outlets (Guardian, PBS, CBS, Independent) lean heavily on DOJ filings and the unsealed indictment; local outlets (KCRA, CBS Sacramento) add naming and context about local political networks and identify individuals who may be implicated in documents but not charged. Readers should note potential implicit agendas: local reporting focuses on political relationships and reputational impact within California, while DOJ copy focuses on legal allegations and statutory exposure; defense statements quoted in some stories emphasize cooperation or intent to respond later, highlighting the parties’ interest in managing public perception ^[5][3].

Conclusion — what’s certain and what remains open

What’s certain in the record: Dana Williamson is charged on 23 counts; the indictment alleges a roughly $225,000 diversion scheme and lists four other co‑conspirators; Sean McCluskie pleaded guilty to a conspiracy count ^[1][4][2]. What remains unresolved in the public reporting: the full charging status of every person named in indictment narratives (some are described but not charged), and the factual determinations that only a court can make at trial — available sources do not provide final adjudications beyond McCluskie’s plea ^[1][4].