A whistleblower in the state Attorney General’s Office was ordered to dig up dirt on President Trump, even after a year-long probe found no wrongdoing – because it was what AG Letitia James was demanding, he told The Post.
Daniel Wiesenfeld, a prosecutor in the Investor Protection Bureau, claimed he was told by Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe to keep trying to make a case against Trump and his pals despite finding no evidence that there was a crime.
“By June 2026, after several meetings, we had become exasperated,” Wiesenfeld told The 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 has been at odds with his boss since August, when he blasted out an email to more than 2,000 colleagues claiming he was being forced to find dirt on Trump and his pals.
A copy of the email was obtained by the Times-Union and made public, unleashing a firestorm of controversy and leading to Wiesenfeld getting suspended.
He was later fired.
The controversy started when he was assigned to investigate an insider-trading claim against a company affiliated with the Trump family. He said the case was based on a tip from a “cryptic text” that was never shared with him.
Earlier this week, Wiesenfeld claimed he was being threatened by the AG’s office for refusing to delete evidence of the alleged corruption.
In an exchange of emails – copies of which were obtained by The Post under state Freedom of Information law — Wiesenfeld denied earlier this week that the documents in question were “confidential and privileged information,” as the AG claimed.
“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 told The Post in the interview Wednesday that claims by James’ office that there were issues with his job performance were payback for blowing the whistle.
“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 did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Additional reporting by Vaughn Golden
Read the full article here
