Ex-Prosecutor Claims AG Letitia James Pushed Trump Probe Despite Lack of Evidence
A former New York prosecutor alleges he was pressured to find wrongdoing in a probe targeting President Trump and his associates, even after investigators found no evidence of a crime.
A former prosecutor in the New York Attorney General's office claims he was directed to pursue allegations against President Trump and his associates despite investigators finding no evidence of wrongdoing. Daniel Wiesenfeld, who worked in the Investor Protection Bureau, stated that his superiors, including Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe, insisted on continuing the investigation because it was the directive of Attorney General Letitia James.
"Tish was the boss and what Tish wanted, Tish got," Wiesenfeld told The Post. "So we had to keep going." He recounted that by June 2026, after a year-long probe, his team had become "exasperated" and informed Maswoswe that they agreed with the assessment that there was no crime.
Wiesenfeld's allegations surfaced in August when he sent an email to over 2,000 colleagues expressing his frustration about being compelled to uncover damaging information on Trump and his associates. A copy of this email was later obtained and published by the Times-Union, leading to Wiesenfeld's suspension and subsequent termination from the AG's office.
The investigation reportedly began based on a "cryptic text message" that Wiesenfeld claims was never provided to him. He was tasked with examining an insider-trading claim connected to a company affiliated with the Trump family.
In recent communications, copies of which were obtained by The Post, Wiesenfeld reportedly refused a demand from the AG's office to delete evidence. He stated that the documents in question were not confidential or privileged and that threats would not compel him to destroy them. He warned that legal action to enforce such a demand would publicize the information.
Wiesenfeld asserts that the negative performance feedback he received only began after he voiced his concerns about the investigation. He stated that prior to expressing his frustration, he had consistently received positive performance evaluations, contradicting any suggestion that he was a problematic employee from the outset.
The Attorney General's office has not yet responded to a request for comment on these allegations.