Below is a long version of my column in the New York Post on the growing controversy in the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James. One of her former prosecutors has leveled a broadside against James for using her office to pursue her enemies and making the prosecution of actual crimes a secondary priority.

Here is the column:

“A personnel matter.” Those three words are how the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James described the suspension of Daniel Wiesenfeld, a former Brooklyn prosecutor who works in the Investor Protection Bureau. Wiesenfeld insists that this personnel matter is personal for James. Indeed, that is precisely the problem. He accused James of siphoning off staff to prosecute her political enemies, hindering actual law enforcement.

Wiesenfeld sent the since-deleted email (obtained by the Times-Union) to call on fellow lawyers not to assist James further in weaponizing her office. He recounted his own experience as a prosecutor in her office and how Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe allegedly directed him to target “Trump himself, Truth Social, Hewlett Packard (DOJ approved merger)… without having a credible reason for targeting the organizations and individuals.”

He added that “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.”

He wrote his colleagues with a simple plea: “I ask you that you not serve as Tish’s personal attorneys by targeting her political enemies. Instead, I hope you choose to prosecute crimes and find the individuals accountable, rather than targeting individuals and then finding crimes.”

Wiesenfeld must have known that his email could well be his swan song as a state lawyer. The assumption is that Wiesenfeld reached a point where working for James was no longer a better alternative to unemployment.

In his blistering email, Wiesenfeld reminded his colleagues that they have other things to do than hunt down the enemies of James. While James wastes “significant public taxpayer dollars to target convenient public enemies,” Wiesenfeld reminded them that there is “rampant nonprofit homeless shelter fraud and antisemitic crimes in and around synagogues.”

When James first ran for Attorney General, I condemned her for what I viewed as an unethical campaign based on a promise to prosecute Trump without bothering to name any particular crime. According to Wiesenfeld, once in office, she converted her staff into a “get Trump” operation. The best that they could come up with was an absurd civil case against Trump where the “victims” made money, lost nothing, and wanted more business from the Trump corporation.

After securing a judge with her same disregard for blind justice, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered an obscene fine that was later largely thrown out on appeal. James’s pledge to seize Trump buildings also never materialized.

However, New Yorkers loved her for it. In an age of rage, James has always offered the type of pure, uncut product that rage addicts need. Outside of New York, most Americans are tired of the weaponization of the law. The problem is that primaries are often driven by a party’s most extreme elements and there is no indication that the lawfare will end. (I have also been critical of the Trump Administration targeting political opponents). Democrats are pledging new investigations and charges if they are returned to power in Congress.

Like other rage dealers, James is unlikely to be deterred by this email or its content. She knows that many New Yorkers still prefer performative lawfare to actual enforcement of fraud and other laws. Some voters would willingly watch billions stolen in program fraud in exchange for just one more trophy Trump conviction.

In fairness to James, she has always been open about what she is and what she was offering. She promised weaponization and delivered it with relish. While ignoring liberal organizations accused of similar excesses, she spent millions pursuing the National Rifle Association until it also collapsed. She targeted pro-life organizations in violation of free speech protections.

When parents sought to oppose transgender policies, James threatened them with unconstitutional prosecutions over exercising their free speech. Nothing, of course, came of her threats, which served their purpose in rallying the perpetually enraged.

Losing such cases would ordinarily be an indictment of any politician, but James was not promising legal victories but political revenge. As Stalin’s secret police head Lavrentiy Beria once promised, the philosophy appeared to be “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” In Trump’s case, James had to settle for a civil case that was later gutted on appeal. However, the saddest aspect of this controversy is not what it says about James but those who elected her.