Rival Demands FBI Re-Interview Becerra Over $225K Scheme

"He needs to be put under oath and asked very direct questions about every aspect of this," Hilton told the New York Post, saying Becerra should not be allowed to "get away with vague answers."

Hilton said Becerra's public account has shifted. "He's given two separate answers in television interviews. On one occasion, he said he knew about the money transfers, but he didn't know what they were for. And on another occasion, he said he didn't even know about them at all," he said.

Pressed on whether his own demand is politically motivated, Hilton said the point is "full information for the voters." He also conceded the limits of what he knows: "I don't know whether he knew, I don't know whether he lied, but the public deserves to know the answers."

Becerra has denied knowing the payments were part of a crime. "I knew what was being paid," he told FOX40, adding, "What I didn't know was all the underlying activity that was occurring that was against the law." He told the Los Angeles Times he believed the payments were a legitimate fee to manage the dormant account: "I was told that's the rate I would have to pay."

After Williamson's guilty plea, Becerra wrote on X: "I did nothing wrong. Case closed."

Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland has said Becerra "had no idea what was going on" and that the scheme was built to deceive him.

Billionaire Tom Steyer's campaign has also pressed the issue, pointing to an ABC10 report that Williamson's attorney described discovery records of McCluskie telling Williamson that "Becerra okayed this." Steyer campaign spokeswoman Danni Wang said: "Becerra can't tweet his way out of tough questions. Voters deserve to know about his role: Is he incompetent, or is he corrupt?"