NEW YORK CITY, NY –
Federal prosecutors reportedly met with an assistant New York attorney general who accused a supervisor of ordering him to look for crimes involving President Donald Trump and several companies before there was a credible investigative basis.
The reported interview adds a new layer of scrutiny to allegations that were first disclosed in an extraordinary office-wide email. The claims are serious, but they remain allegations. No court, inspector general or other independent body has publicly found that the attorney general’s office opened cases for an improper political purpose.
Assistant Attorney General Daniel Wiesenfeld sent the email on Aug. 28 to more than 2,000 colleagues, according to a copy obtained by the Times Union. He alleged that Investor Protection Bureau chief Shamiso Maswoswe instructed him to find and pursue crimes involving Trump, Truth Social and Hewlett Packard without a credible reason to target those people or organizations.
Wiesenfeld worked from the attorney general’s Liberty Street office in Manhattan and had been assigned to significant investor-protection matters. His message accused the office of spending public money to select targets first and search for crimes afterward.
The email was quickly removed from employee inboxes, the Times Union reported. A later internal message described the episode as a personnel matter and assured employees that no one in the office was in danger.
That deletion creates an accountability question separate from the truth of Wiesenfeld’s accusations. Government agencies must preserve records according to applicable retention rules, litigation duties and investigative needs. The public still does not know who ordered the message removed, what preservation steps were taken or whether an independent office is reviewing the underlying allegations.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Letitia James said Wiesenfeld was placed on paid administrative leave and that the office strongly rejected any suggestion that political beliefs shape its enforcement work. The office said it remains committed to enforcing New York law impartially.
Wiesenfeld’s allegations do not establish that James personally directed any improper investigation. They also do not prove that any inquiry lacked a lawful predicate. Those questions require documents, witness interviews and a review by investigators independent of the people accused.
The New York Post reported on Sept. 2, citing unidentified sources, that federal prosecutors interviewed Wiesenfeld for several hours. Federal authorities have not publicly confirmed the meeting, announced an investigation or accused anyone in the attorney general’s office of a crime.
The reported federal contact is therefore a development, not a finding. It means prosecutors may be gathering information. It does not mean they accepted Wiesenfeld’s account or concluded that laws were broken.
The dispute unfolds against years of political warfare between James and Trump. James pursued a civil fraud case against Trump’s business interests. Trump and his allies have accused her of political targeting, while James has accused the federal government under Trump of retaliating against her.
That history makes independent fact-finding more important, not less. The central questions are procedural: What assignment was Wiesenfeld given? What evidence supported it? Who approved it? Were normal intake, conflict and supervisory safeguards followed? What happened to the email and every copy of it?
New Yorkers should not have to choose between rival political narratives to demand answers. A prosecutor’s power must rest on evidence and law, and allegations of misuse inside a statewide law-enforcement office deserve a transparent review that protects records, witnesses and due process.
Leave a Reply