President Trump shared a New York Post exclusive on a prosecutor’s charge that Attorney General Letitia James pushed a Trump probe despite investigators finding nothing, a claim her office calls a personnel matter.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump sent his roughly 13 million Truth Social followers a link to a New York Post exclusive about whistleblower claims inside the New York attorney general’s office. The post carried the headline that an ex-New York prosecutor said AG Letitia James pushed a Trump probe even after investigators found nothing, and that “what Tish wanted, Tish got.”

The prosecutor is Daniel Wiesenfeld, who worked in the Investor Protection Bureau. He says a superior ordered him to keep making a case against Trump and to search his finances and associations for dirt. He says the team had grown exasperated, and that the directive came from the top.

That allegation lands in a long-running fight over whether James used her office as a political weapon. Trump’s legal team has pressed New York’s highest court to shut down the fraud case for good, and the whistleblower account now puts a named insider on the record about internal pressure.

Trump’s lawyers have urged the state’s top court to end the James fraud case. The new claims give that fight fresh fuel from inside the AG’s own ranks.

Whistleblower says the order came from the top

Wiesenfeld described a simple chain of command. James wanted the probe kept alive. So the office kept it alive.

He put it this way:

“Tish was the boss and what Tish wanted, Tish got,” he said. “So we had to keep it going.”

Earlier reporting filled in the paper trail. An August Albany Times-Union account cited since-deleted emails in which Wiesenfeld said he was ordered to find dirt on groups “affiliated with Donald Trump” and to “find and pursue crimes” by Trump allies.

Just The News reported that Wiesenfeld alleged his supervisor told him to “find and pursue crimes” involving Trump and Truth Social even though he saw no credible justification. He sent an agency-wide email laying out those claims. The message was quickly stripped from employees’ inboxes. He was then placed on paid administrative leave.

Federal investigators took the claims seriously

The story did not stay inside Albany. Federal investigators sat down with Wiesenfeld for hours after he alleged directed targeting of Trump and Trump-linked entities.

The Washington Examiner reported that FBI and Justice Department attorneys interviewed the assistant attorney general while he remained on paid leave. Wiesenfeld named Investor Protection Bureau chief Shamiso Maswoswe as the official who told him to find and pursue crimes by Trump, Truth Social, Hewlett Packard, and other Trump affiliates without a credible basis. He said he emailed more than 2,000 employees. That email was quickly deleted.

James’s office framed the episode as a personnel dispute and rejected the charge of political targeting. Wiesenfeld answered that defense with a direct comparison.

He wrote:

“If you believe Trump is using the Department of Justice attorneys to prosecute his enemies and further his political interests, you should find it equally troubling that Tish James is doing exactly the same thing.”

That line cuts to the core of the accountability argument. Voters are told to fear political prosecutions. Here a career prosecutor says the same pattern ran the other way, out of a Democratic attorney general’s office in New York.

Deleted email and a White House response

Fox News detailed the same deleted-email account: Wiesenfeld alleged Maswoswe directed targeting of “Trump himself, Truth Social, Hewlett Packard (DOJ approved merger)... without having a credible reason for targeting [these] organizations and individuals.” The White House treated the episode as confirmation of a broader pattern.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said:

This is more proof of the weaponization of the justice system by Letitia James to target President Trump and her political opponents. The far-left Democrats lawfare against President Trump, his family, and allies must stop.

James’s office again called it a personnel matter and denied political bias. The office has not, in the reporting tied to this episode, produced a public rebuttal that walks through the emails, the leave decision, or the alleged directive point by point.

A $454 million judgment already thrown out

The whistleblower claims sit beside a concrete court result. In August 2025, a New York appeals court threw out a $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump and called the fine excessive.

That ruling undercut the crown jewel of James’s civil case. It also sharpened the question Wiesenfeld raises: if investigators were still being told to dig after the evidence ran thin, what exactly was the office chasing?

Trump has kept the political pressure on as well. He has endorsed former federal prosecutor Saritha Komatireddy to unseat James, turning the legal clash into a ballot-box fight over how the attorney general’s office is run.

Pattern of contested cases and recanted claims

The James-Trump docket has been a revolving door of contested testimony and aggressive charging theories. Trump publicly thanked Michael Cohen after Cohen recanted testimony used against him in the Bragg and James cases. Separate federal fights have kept both Comey and James in the headlines as appeals courts weighed DOJ efforts tied to those matters.

An appeals court has also weighed a DOJ push involving cases linked to Comey and James. Layer the Wiesenfeld emails, the deleted agency-wide message, the paid leave, and the federal interview on top of that record, and the picture is not subtle. A prosecutor says he was told to hunt for crimes without a solid basis. The office wiped the email and put him on leave. Federal investigators then spent hours with him.

What remains unanswered

Key gaps still sit in plain sight. The public record tied to this episode does not name the exact date of the alleged superior directive. It does not reproduce the full text of the since-deleted emails beyond the short phrases already reported. It does not show a detailed, on-the-record factual rebuttal from James walking through each claim. And it does not identify a new charging document that would explain why the hunt was still on after investigators, in Wiesenfeld’s account, had come up empty.

What the record does show is pressure from above, a deleted office-wide warning, a prosecutor on leave, federal interest, and a president putting the story in front of millions of followers. Taxpayers fund these offices. They are entitled to know whether cases start with evidence or with a target list.

When a prosecutor says the boss wanted a case kept alive after the evidence dried up, the burden shifts. Officials who demand trust in “the rule of law” should open the files, not erase the email and call it personnel.