A whistleblower in the New York state Attorney General’s Office claims he was ordered to continue digging for damaging material on President Trump even after a yearlong investigation uncovered no wrongdoing.
He told The Post [1] that Attorney General Letitia James wanted the probe to continue.
Daniel Wiesenfeld, a prosecutor in the Investor Protection Bureau, said Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe instructed investigators to keep trying to build a case against Trump and his associates.
According to Wiesenfeld, the team had found no evidence that a crime occurred.
Wiesenfeld described investigators as increasingly frustrated after repeatedly reviewing the matter. “By June 2026, after several meetings, we had become exasperated,” he told The Post during an exclusive interview.
According to Wiesenfeld, Maswoswe indicated that she shared the investigators’ frustration but lacked the authority to shut down the probe.
“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.”
Wiesenfeld said James ultimately controlled whether the investigation would continue.
“Tish was the boss, and what Tish wanted, Tish got. So we had to keep going.”
The prosecutor’s conflict with his employer burst into public view in August. That month, Wiesenfeld sent an email to more than 2,000 colleagues claiming that he was being forced to find dirt on Trump and his associates.
A copy of that message was obtained by the Times Union and subsequently made public. Its release triggered a wave of controversy and led to Wiesenfeld being suspended from his position.
Wiesenfeld said the dispute began after he was assigned to investigate an insider trading allegation involving a company affiliated with the Trump family. He maintained that the case rested on a tip derived from a “cryptic text.”
That text, he said, was never shared with him. Despite the lack of evidence identified by investigators, Wiesenfeld claimed he was nevertheless expected to continue searching for a possible case.
Earlier this week, Wiesenfeld also accused the Attorney General’s Office of threatening him because he refused to delete documents he described as evidence of alleged corruption.
His accusation added another layer to the already bitter personnel dispute.
The Post obtained copies of related email exchanges through the state Freedom of Information law.
In those messages, Wiesenfeld disputed the office’s assertion that the documents were “confidential and privileged information.”
“These documents are simply evidence and your threats will not compel me to destroy such evidence,” Wiesenfeld wrote. He argued that threatened legal action could instead expose the disputed material publicly.
“If anything, carrying out your threats by bringing this to a legal forum will make this information public,” he wrote.
The message showed Wiesenfeld directly rejecting the office’s demand concerning the documents.
During his Wednesday interview with The Post, Wiesenfeld also addressed criticism of his work.
He claimed that allegations about his job performance represented retaliation for his decision to speak out about the Trump investigation.
“The negative feedback about my performance came only after I expressed that frustration,” Wiesenfeld said. He contrasted that criticism with the assessment he said he had received before raising objections.
“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,” he said.
A spokesperson for James rejected Wiesenfeld’s account and defended the office’s disciplinary process.
The spokesperson said the office must take action 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. The statement did not accept Wiesenfeld’s contention that criticism of his performance was retaliation.
The spokesperson also defended the office’s broader mission. “We remain committed to enforcing New York’s laws and defending the rights of all New Yorkers. Any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous.”