“WHAT TISH WANTED, TISH GOT”: Fired NY Prosecutor Claims Letitia James Ordered Trump Investigation to Continue Despite Finding No Crime
A former prosecutor in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office has accused her of pursuing a politically motivated investigation targeting President Donald Trump and his associates even after investigators concluded that no crime had been committed. The prosecutor, who was subsequently fired, claims he was instructed to continue searching for evidence against Trump despite determining that the investigation had no legitimate basis.
Daniel Wiesenfeld, who worked in the Attorney General’s Investor Protection Bureau, told the New York Post that his superiors refused to shut down the investigation because James personally wanted it to continue. He alleged that the directive came through his supervisor, Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe, who privately acknowledged that the case should be closed but indicated that the final decision belonged to James.
“By June 2026, after several meetings, we had become exasperated,” Wiesenfeld told The NY Post in an exclusive interview. “Shamiso told us, in sum and substance, that she agreed with us and that if it were her call, she would close the case – but that it was Tish’s call.
“Tish was the boss and what Tish wanted, Tish got,” he said. “So we had to keep going.”
Wiesenfeld’s accusations have intensified a dispute that began in August, when he sent an explosive email to more than 2,000 employees in the Attorney General’s office, alleging that prosecutors were being pressured to pursue Trump and individuals connected to him for political reasons.
“If you believe Trump is using the [Department of Justice] attorneys to prosecute his enemies to further his political interests, you should find it equally troubling that Tish is doing exactly the same thing,” the email said.
Wiesenfeld urged his colleagues to resist what he described as the misuse of prosecutorial authority to advance James’ political objectives.
“I ask you that you not serve as Tish’s personal attorneys by targeting her political enemies,” he added. “Instead, I hope you choose to prosecute crimes and find the individuals accountable, rather than targeting individuals and then find the crimes.”
The internal message eventually became public after the Times Union obtained a copy, setting off controversy within the Attorney General’s office. Wiesenfeld was placed on administrative leave following the disclosure and was later dismissed from his position.
According to Wiesenfeld, the controversy originated with an assignment he received on July 25, 2025, involving allegations of insider trading connected to a company associated with the Trump family. The investigation reportedly stemmed from an anonymous tip suggesting that Donald Trump Jr. and several associates had been providing confidential information to private companies in exchange for millions of dollars.
The former prosecutor said the allegations were based on a mysterious text message from an unidentified phone number. Despite being assigned to investigate the claims, he maintained that he was never permitted to examine the underlying message or learn the circumstances surrounding its receipt.
“I asked for information about the cryptic text and any context that could be provided, but my boss, Shamiso Maswoswe, told me they could not provide me with more information.
Even without access to the original tip, Wiesenfeld said his team conducted an extensive investigation and ultimately determined that the available evidence did not support criminal charges.
Despite being kept in the dark, “we affirmatively conclude that no crime had taken place,” Wiesenfeld said.
Rather than closing the matter, however, Wiesenfeld alleged that his superiors instructed him to continue pursuing additional investigative avenues, including issuing subpoenas to financial institutions. He said he objected to the directive because he believed the investigation had reached a dead end.
When ordered to proceed, Wiesenfeld said he “pushed back.
“I said the investigation was a waste of time and that there was no way forward,” he told The Post. “Nevertheless, I was directed to send subpoenas to several banks, wasting taxpayer dollars and the banks’ resources on what I believed was a fruitless, politically motivated investigation.”
The New York Post reported that both the FBI and the Justice Department subsequently examined Wiesenfeld’s allegations. The report did not establish whether either agency had reached conclusions about the accusations or initiated formal proceedings against James or other officials.
The dispute has also expanded into a confrontation over documents Wiesenfeld retained after leaving the Attorney General’s office. Earlier this week, he accused James’ office of threatening legal action against him for refusing to destroy materials that he considers evidence of official misconduct.
Correspondence obtained through New York’s Freedom of Information Law showed that Wiesenfeld rejected the office’s contention that the records contained protected or privileged information. He insisted that preserving the documents was necessary to substantiate his allegations.
“These documents are simply evidence and your threats will not compel me to destroy such evidence,” he wrote. “If anything, carrying out your threats by bringing this to a legal forum will make this information public.”
Wiesenfeld also disputed the Attorney General’s explanation for his dismissal, arguing that criticism of his work emerged only after he challenged the investigation and publicly accused James of political interference.
“The negative feedback about my performance came only after I expressed that frustration,” he said. “Before then, I had received a very positive performance evaluation. So, the suggestion that I had simply been a problem employee all along is false.”
James’ office has firmly rejected the suggestion that Wiesenfeld was punished for exposing wrongdoing. A spokesperson maintained that his termination resulted from violations of legal and professional standards rather than retaliation for his allegations.
The spokesperson said the office is obligated to impose discipline “when one of its attorneys violates the law, the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, or agency policy.
“Mr. Wiesenfeld was terminated for cause after it was determined that he committed such violations,” the spokesperson said. “We remain committed to enforcing New York’s laws and defending the rights of all New Yorkers. Any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous.”
The allegations come against the backdrop of a longstanding and highly contentious relationship between James and President Trump. During her 2018 campaign for attorney general, James publicly pledged to “prosecute the president for crimes committed in New York” if voters elected her to the position.
After taking office, James brought a major civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, his two eldest sons, and the Trump Organization. Her office alleged that the defendants had systematically exaggerated the values of real estate holdings and other assets to obtain more favorable financing arrangements.
The case resulted in a ruling against Trump and a financial penalty initially set at approximately $350 million, before interest. An appeals court subsequently upheld the underlying liability findings while overturning the massive monetary penalty.
Trump and his allies have repeatedly characterized James’ legal efforts as politically driven, while James has maintained that her actions were based on evidence and her responsibility to enforce state law.
The Trump administration has also weighed in on Wiesenfeld’s accusations, describing the former prosecutor’s account as further evidence that James used her office to pursue political adversaries.
In a statement issued last month, the administration called Wiesenfeld’s claims “more proof of the weaponization of the justice system by Letitia James to target President Trump and her political opponents.”
Additional reporting has provided a more detailed account of the federal government’s interest in Wiesenfeld’s allegations. On September 1, he reportedly met for several hours with FBI agents and Justice Department attorneys to discuss his accusations. The extent of the federal inquiry, including whether a formal criminal investigation has been opened, remains unclear.
Separately, records obtained through a public information request have complicated the dispute over Wiesenfeld’s dismissal. The records reportedly show that supervisors had previously raised concerns about his attendance, responsiveness, and handling of assignments. They also document allegations that he transferred confidential government materials to his personal email account. Wiesenfeld maintains that the criticism was retaliatory and that the materials he retained are evidence of misconduct.
The confrontation has also unfolded during James’ reelection campaign. Her Republican challenger, Saritha Komatireddy, has made allegations of politically motivated prosecutions a campaign issue, accusing the attorney general of devoting excessive attention to Trump while neglecting other state responsibilities. James’ campaign has rejected those attacks and defended her office’s enforcement record.
{Matzav.com}
