Fired anti-Trump prosecutor running for congressional seat faces tough questions in case he led

A former federal prosecutor with vocal anti-Trump views who was fired in late March is facing tough questions about his handling of a high-profile case as he attempts to get his job back in the Trump Justice Department.

Adam Schleifer, who ran unsuccessfully in a Democratic congressional primary in New York in 2020, was an Assistant U.S. Attorney both before and after his unsuccessful House bid until his firing on March 28. Schleifer’s public statements on social media in 2020 that “Donald Trump must be convicted and removed from office” and that “I [pray] ⁦@JoeBiden⁩ is our President” are representative of his vocalizing his political views while running for office as a Democrat. He is now trying to get his job back.

It was reported by the New York Times in late March of this year that Schleifer was “sitting at his computer” in his Los Angeles office and was “working on a case against Andrew Wiederhorn” when he was fired. The outlet cited anonymous sources when reporting that Schleifer was “shocked and confused by the message” firing him and “asked supervisors if the email was some kind of hoax.” The outlet said that Schleifer’s colleagues “suspected” that Schleifer’s work on a Fatburger fraud case “may have played a role in his dismissal.”

Andrew Wiederhorn is the CEO of FAT Brands, which includes such companies as Johnny Rockets, Fatburger, and Great American Cookies. The DOJ announced fraud charges against Wiederhorn in May 2024, and Schleifer played a key role in the prosecution until his dismissal from the department. Wiederhorn is a Trump donor.

A review of recent court filings by Just the News showed Wiederhorn’s defense team vigorously pushing back against the charges, with judges agreeing with some of the assertions made by the defense lawyers. Wiederhorn’s trial date being pushed back by the judge at the insistence of the defense team and over objections by Schleifer and the DOJ, combined with Schleifer’s lengthy anti-Trump commentary, could give the Trump administration evidence to point to if called upon to defend the firing.

Schleifer’s LinkedIn page states that he served as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles for years up until November 2019, when he left to run as a Democratic candidate for New York’s 17th Congressional District in the 2020 primary. He lost, coming in second. Schleifer’s LinkedIn page says that he returned as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Los Angeles office in January 2021 — before being fired at the end of last month.

The New York Times reported that Schleifer spent more than $4 million on his congressional bid in the district, which covers Rockland County and part of Westchester. That’s roughly $1 million more than the six other contenders combined.

Pushed for abolition of the Electoral College, imposing carbon taxes, and more

A review of Schleifer by Just the News shows campaign-related ads and his tweets, his far-left-wing views and his repeated and harsh public criticisms of President Trump, including repeatedly backing the efforts to impeach the president during his first term. 

His views also showed a range of left-wing stances, including strong support for the Black Lives Matter protests, openness to illegal immigration, and advocacy for imposing a carbon tax and abolishing the Electoral College. Schleifer was running amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and the riots following the death of George Floyd, and he adopted many of the radical stances of that time. Schleifer also denounced efforts by the Trump Justice Department — including then-Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the sentencing of Roger Stone — while he criticized the clemency Trump had granted to some convicted of crimes who the DOJ had previously prosecuted.

Schleifer wrote “we must abolish the Electoral College” in an opinion piece for River Journal North that month, where he also wrote that “we cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.”

The Associated Press reported in late March that Schleifer received an email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office telling him that he was being fired “on behalf of President Donald J. Trump.” The outlet also said that he received the email “exactly an hour after right-wing activist Laura Loomer called for him to be fired in a social media post that highlighted Schleifer’s past critical comments about Trump.”

President Trump called Loomer a “great patriot” and denied that she had anything to do with the firings.

“Why is Biden holdover @AdamSchleiferNY Adam Schleifer still working for the US Attorney’s office under the new Trump administration?” Loomer had tweeted on March 28. “He is a Trump hater who has been working at the US Attorney’s office since 2021. Fire him. He supported the impeachment of President Trump and said he wanted to repeal Trump’s tax plan. We need to purge the US Attorney’s office of all leftist Trump haters.”

It was reported by the New York Times in early April that “multiple sources” told them that Joseph T. McNally, the acting Assistant U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles, was not involved in firing Schleifer. The outlet said that “the sources … suspected Schleifer’s firing was motivated, in part, by a case he was assigned involving Andrew Wiederhorn.”

Schleifer, the wealthy son of the CEO of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, posted about the Wiederhorn case in May 2024, saying on LinkedIn that he was “glad to be part of the great team working on this significant matter.”

He also retweeted posts from the Assistant U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles and from the FBI office in Los Angeles which were touting the prosecution against the Fat Brands CEO. Lawyers for Wiederhorn and FAT Brands did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.

The Associated Press reported on Monday that Schleifer was battling his being fired by the Trump administration in a filing with the Merit Systems Protection Board, which describes itself as an “independent, quasi-judicial agency in the Executive branch that serves as the guardian of Federal merit systems.”

A “private citizen” with a very public job

Schleifer reportedly told the board that he was fired for “unprecedented partisan and political reasons” and claimed his firing undermined a “bedrock principle” of the justice system. The outlet said that “Schleifer argues he was unlawfully fired in retaliation for protected political speech from a time when he wasn’t working as a government lawyer” and that “he’s seeking reinstatement, back pay and other relief.”

The filing reportedly stated that “nothing in Mr. Schleifer’s conduct as a private citizen would cast any doubt on his commitment to defend the Constitution and the rule of law and to advance the impartial administration of justice.”

Schleifer did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News sent to him via his X and LinkedIn accounts. 

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News. Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin declined to comment. Ciaran McEvoy, a DOJ public information officer for the Central District of Los Angeles, told Just the News that “we have no comment re: Mr. Schleifer.”

Schleifer is not the only recent departure from DOJ’s Los Angeles office, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Pell, who has also handled fraud cases for the office, also leaving recently. A spokesman for the DOJ’s Los Angeles office told Just the News that “Mr. Pell took the ‘fork in the road’ buyout.”

Jonathan Buma, an arrested FBI agent who had publicly alleged Trump ally Rudy Giuliani may have been compromised by Russia and who had denied the FBI had mishandled its investigation of Hunter Biden, had worked for the bureau’s field office in Los Angeles. Buma is currently being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.

Schleifer’s anti-Trump 2020 campaign

In the lead up to his congressional campaign announcement, Schleifer endorsed the House Democrat-led effort to impeach Trump in December 2019, tweeting, “Today we reaffirm we are governed by laws, not corrupt people. NO ONE, let alone a President, can be permitted to subvert our democracy.”

“No one is above the law. Not on main street; not on ‘5th Ave’; not in the White House,” he tweeted that month. “Our founders understood this, and I’m proud to see @RepAdamSchiff @RepSeanMaloney @RepJerryNadler @SpeakerPelosi and their colleagues strengthen this bedrock principle of our constitution.”

Schiff tweeted in January 2020 that “Donald Trump must be convicted and removed from office. Because he will always choose his own personal interest over our national interest. Because in America, right matters. Truth matters. If not, no Constitution can protect us. If not, we are lost.”

Schleifer praised the tweet from Schiff: “This. Proud of my former rep (and USAO-CDCA Major Frauds Section predecessor!) @RepAdamSchiff. Trump erodes our constitutional integrity every day with every lie and every act of heedless, narcissistic corruption.” 

Trump was impeached by the Democrat-led House but was acquitted by the GOP-led Senate.

Schleifer’s negative ad campaign  

Many of Schleifer’s campaign ads are no longer publicly available because he appears to have deleted his campaign website and set the YouTube page to private, but some of the information was recovered using the WayBack Machine.

Schleifer released a January 2020 ad launching his campaign. The “Why I’m Running” ad took aim at President Trump: “We love this country for its basic promise of freedom and fair opportunity, but unfortunately that promise has come under attack. Caging children. Emboldening hate.” Relying on the Trump-as-Hitler trope, the ad displayed imagery of swastikas spray-painted on a Jewish synagogue’s sign. 

The darkly negative ad then continued: “Destroying our planet. And undermining our civic trust and basic faith in democracy. President Trump has gone too far. We must stand up to him, because no one is above the law.” Schleifer’s “Campaign Issues” ad included that, in Congress, he promised to “continue the fight and take on Donald Trump, and stand up to anyone who thinks they are above the law.”

Schleifer fired off a February 2020 posting saying that “I know Twitter’s ‘news cycle’ moves on like a bunch of high-frequency traders, but let’s pause for a second to let this sink in. As numb as Trump makes us, this is staggering. Trump angry after House briefed on 2020 Russia election meddling on his behalf.”

In response to Trump granting clemency to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and others that month, Schleifer tweeted, “SMH [Shaking My Head]. It’s hard to imagine a President doing more to demoralize line prosecutors, law-enforcement partners, and faith in rule of law than he already has.”

“It’s very unusual for DOJ brass to micromanage and countermand the work and judgment [sic] of line prosecutors. It’s an existential threat to our norms of constitutional governance when the AG does so in response to tweet-cajoling by POTUS in order to manipulate outcome for a crony,” he tweeted, adding, “In corrupt societies (and in the world of Trump’s mentor, Roy Cohn) might makes right; who you know matters more than what you did or what the law is. We used to be better than this. I’m fighting so we become so again. And now we see brave resignations in protest of this unprecedented meddling by Trump into the work of hardworking, honest DOJ AUSAs.”

Publicly complained about Roger Stone sentencing

Schleifer also harshly criticized then-Attorney General William Barr for weighing in on the DOJ’s sentencing recommendation for Trump ally Roger Stone that month, calling it “uncharted and unacceptable territory.” 

Prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller had recommended that Stone be sentenced to up to nine years behind bars after he was convicted. Barr’s DOJ called that sentencing recommendation “unduly high” even as Barr defended the prosecution against Stone. Mueller prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky and others withdrew from the case in protest.

The first Trump DOJ ultimately ended up recommending that Stone receive between three and four years behind bars, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson — an Obama appointee judge presiding over the case — ultimately agreed with Barr’s recommendation. Stone was sentenced to roughly three and a half years behind bars, and Trump granted clemency to Stone, commuting his sentence later that year.

Schleifer also lamented the Senate’s decision not to convict Trump during its impeachment trial that month.

“Sadly, we can now say that @SenatorRomney is, uniquely among his peers, a throwback to a time when at least a few GOP had integrity and courage and weren’t cowed by a cult of borderline personality disorder,” he tweeted in response to a Schiff tweet.

Schleifer tweeted of Trump in March 2020 that “he’s not a real President; he just plays one on TV.” Trump also told Inside Press that month that “I know how to take on bullies and fraudsters because that was my specialty for the last six years. Trump has done more to undermine our institution and our sense of constitutional governance than anyone, maybe ever, in our country.”

That month, he also repeatedly praised Cuomo’s leadership in New York as compared to Trump’s as president.

“Hope White House is watching @NYGovCuomo press conference and taking copious notes on: How to communicate aggressive, thoughtful policy responses & RISE to an occasion,” Schleifer tweeted. “@NYGovCuomo may not have all the answers at moment [sic]; no one does. But at least NY has some leadership.”

Radical views on COVID, climate change, social justice

He also wrote an opinion piece for USA Today affiliate Lohud that month titled “Coronavirus: Coming together while remaining apart: Empowerment from adversity.” In that Op/Ed, he said “New Yorkers have witnessed an object lesson in leadership by Gov. Andrew Cuomo this past week,” he wrote. “Our state has taken thoughtful, swift action but remained agile enough to react as facts clarified or changed. This is the essence of good leadership in times of crisis, and the basis of good policy in all others.”

He also posted that month that the pandemic should end up being an opportunity to advance left-wing ideas: “As we shelter apart, we begin to see ourselves as part of a global fabric, together in our isolation. And once we overcome #COVID19 (with the help of #UBIStimulus) we’ll see we have the vision & courage to take #ClimateAction and repair our broken world.

Schleifer claimed in an April 2020 tweet that “President Trump left us unprepared for #COVID19.” As a sign of the times, one of his campaign ads that month ended with him saying, “Filming from a safe social distance, I’m Adam Schleifer and I approve this message.”

He also tweeted that month that “2 plagues have cost countless lives, imposed huge burdens on #HealthcareHeroes, and harmed all communities while disproportionately harming #communitiesofcolor: #COVID19 & gun violence.” And he again argued for a “#carbontax.”

In May 2020, Schleifer released another campaign ad where he again praised Cuomo and attacked Trump: “While our essential workers and healthcare heroes risk their lives, Trump let us down by ignoring science and giving us toxic advice,” he claimed. “I learned how to lead working for Gov. Cuomo as a consumer protection regulator. And as a federal prosecutor, I stood up to bullies and took on fraud in our healthcare system. In Congress, I’ll put our health and our safety first. And I’ll make sure that Trump and his cronies will never put us in this position again.”

Schleifer also tweeted that month that “I prosecuted what they called ‘major frauds’ as a federal prosecutor. I [pray] ⁦@JoeBiden⁩ is our President in January, but if somehow he’s not, I will bring everything I have to uphold and protect our constitution from this corrosive corruption” as he referenced a New York Times article.

In May of 2020, Schliefer jumped into the social media fray when a white woman called the police and accused a black man of threatening her and her dog in New York City’s Central Park. The episode went viral, and Schleifer responded by suggesting the woman should be prosecuted: “The footage of this incident in Central Park appears to show not only cynically racist and despicable behavior, but arguably a crime: It’s illegal to submit a false incident report in NY.”

Obama released a statement in the wake of George Floyd’s death that month which said, “It’s natural to wish for life to ‘just get back to normal’ as a pandemic and economic crisis upend everything around us. But we have to remember that for millions of Americans, being treated differently on account of race is tragically, painfully, maddeningly ‘normal’ — whether it’s while dealing with the health care system, or interacting with the criminal justice system, or jogging down the street, or just watching birds in the park.”

Schleifer responded affectionately that he was “proud to have been hired and have served under this amazing president, whose wise empathy and depth we miss terribly through this ongoing national nightmare.”

A campaign ad that he touted on his Twitter in June 2020 stated that “as a federal prosecutor in the Obama administration, Adam Schleifer took illegal guns off our streets,” that “Adam Schleifer worked for Governor Cuomo,” and that “he will hold Trump and his cronies accountable.”

Public support for Biden policies and campaign

Biden tweeted that month that he was promising that “on day one, I’ll send a bill to Congress that creates a clear roadmap to citizenship for Dreamers and 11 million undocumented people who are already strengthening our nation.”

Schleifer enthusiastically endorsed it: “Yes! We need comprehensive #ImmigrationReform. Immigrants contribute $2 trillion to our economy every year. Let’s get all the productive, hardworking dreamers who risked it all to join and perpetuate our American Dream out of the shadows and participating fully.”

He also tweeted his support for Biden that month, saying, “These days, we’re long on bluster but short on grit and depth, and it’s making us weaker, not stronger. That’s why we need @JoeBiden.”

In a speech he gave that month with his mask placed firmly underneath his chin, Schleifer talked about his grandparents surviving the Holocaust and coming to America to live the American dream, arguing that “that promise that was redeemed for them in this country alone has not been redeemed for our black and brown Americans.”

He again endorsed BLM that month, tweeting, “We need to raise our voices in constructive anger and righteous indignation in support of #BLM and the unmet promises of our constitution. But our words, while important, are not enough.”

“250 years after the unrealized promise of the Declaration of Independence; 150 years after the end of slavery, ‘its badges,’ and the amendments we passed in a failed attempt to move past our nation’s original sin; 50 years after MLK awoke our consciousness and moral imagination by helping all Americans see the ‘sweltering heat’ of racial injustice: We see today as clearly as ever that we have so much further to go to realize the unmet vision of our constitution,” Schleifer declared in a campaign ad that month.

Schleifer also wrote an opinion piece that month titled “LGBTQ+ New Yorkers Deserve More than Just Acceptance in Congress — They Deserve Solidarity” where he wrote that “as the grandson of Holocaust survivors and brother of a young man with special needs, I am especially attuned to the corrosive winds of discrimination and bigotry. But I am also heartened by how we all rally together to protest injustice and hate, as we saw in the recent Women’s Marches and in the counter-protests in Charlottesville.”

It was reported by Lohud that Schleifer had “a net worth of at least $31 million” and “would become one of the wealthiest members of the U.S. Congress if he wins.” Schleifer was attacked by other Democrats in the primary over his spending millions of his own dollars on the race. He ended up coming in second place in the primary, losing to future Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones, who won the general election in 2020 but lost a reelection bid in 2022.

Schleifer issued a seven tweet “concession message” in July 2020.

“This year has buffeted us all with its ‘widening gyre’; we’re left fearing that the ‘center cannot hold,’ words Yeats made famous in The Second Coming, which he wrote as his pregnant wife fell ill during the deadly Flu of 1918-1919,” he tweeted, adding that “while we made tremendous strides and resonated deeply — finishing 2nd of 8 — congratulations and best wishes are owed to @MondaireJones.”

Schleifer thanked “all who supported us and our vision for a community, country and world that is more just, thoughtful, cohesive, and sustainably prosperous” and endorsed Biden, saying that “I am going to continue in pursuit of that vision, and I hope you join me in supporting @JoeBiden’s pursuit of the same.”

After loss, a hard left turn

He tweeted in August 2020 that “among the most hopeful things we’re hearing throughout the #DemocraticNationalConvention” was “respect for #science. As our constitution says, a fundamental duty of government is to ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts.’ Now more than ever: our lives depend on that.”

In response to a tweet that worried Trump would lose the popular vote to Biden but defeat him in the Electoral College, in September 2020 he tweeted, “We really need to obviate the #ElectoralCollege through the #NationalPopularVotePlan and then abolish it through a constitutional amendment. There’s no real case for it, anymore; it’s undemocratic (undermines one-person-one-vote); and distorts national discussion and priorities.”

That month he also sent a tweet implying Russian leader Vladimir Putin had celebrated the debate between Trump and Biden.

“Can we please #CarbonTax fracking (and other fossil fuels)?” Schleifer tweeted in October 2020. “Whether or not fracking is banned, we need a #CarbonTax so those who produce #GreenHouseGasses pay for the damage they cause and those who find better solutions compete on a fair playing field.”

That month he also criticized a New York Post article about emails found on Hunter Biden’s laptop, lamenting, “Why is this invasive voyeurism newsworthy?”

Schleifer occasionally took to Twitter following 2020 — and while back as a federal prosecutor in California — to weigh in on politics.

Canadian scientist Steven Pinker issued a lengthy tweet in December 2023, arguing, “The wrong way for the elite universities to dig themselves out their [sic] reputational hole: restrict speech even more. Instead: 1. Clear & coherent free speech policy. 2. Institutional neutrality: Universities are forums, not protagonists. 3. Force prohibited: No more heckler’s vetoes, building takeovers, classroom invasions, intimidations, blockades, assaults. 4. Disempower DEI bureaucrats, responsible to no one, who have turned campuses into laughingstocks. 5. Viewpoint diversity: Discourage political & intellectual monocultures (including hard-left/PoMo/’intersectional’).”

Schleifer responded approvingly: “Correct. The solution isn’t weaponizing illiberal hypocrisy against its antisemitic proponents; it’s ending the illiberalism and restoring liberal values. For everyone.”

Adam Rubenstein, now formerly of the New York Times, wrote an article for The Atlantic in February 2024 titled “I Was a Heretic at The New York Times. I did what I was hired to do, and I paid for it.” When sharing his article, Rubsenstein tweeted, “I took notes.”

Schleifer responded to Rubenstein’s tweet, saying, “Critical read but semantic request of @RubensteinAdam: can we make clear it wasn’t ‘liberalism’ but, truly, ‘illiberal progressivism’ whose crosshairs you describe?”

Schleifer, seemingly out of the blue, also tweeted “Congressional Borderline Personality Disorder” in May 2022.

Schleifer, Wiederhorn, and FAT Brands

The Justice Department announced in May 2024 that Wiederhorn had been charged in an October 2023 indictment. It contended that Wiederhorn caused FAT Brands and its affiliate Fog Cutter Capital Group “to compensate him through approximately $47 million in distributions, which he…and others categorized as ‘shareholder loans’ from Fog in order to conceal the true nature of the payments from defendant FAT’s Board of Directors, its independent auditors, its minority shareholders, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the broader investing public. “

Wiederhorn denied the claims and pleaded not guilty. The case continued, and Martin Estrada, then-Chief Prosecutor for the nation’s most-populous federal district, argued in May 2024 that “this defendant, the former CEO of a publicly traded company, is alleged to have engaged in a long-running scheme to defraud investors and the United States Treasury to the tune of millions of dollars.”

The DOJ press release said that “this case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Adam P. Schleifer of the Corporate and Securities Fraud Strike Force.”

“These charges are wrong on both the facts and the law. Mr. Wiederhorn consulted and followed the advice of world-class professionals in all of his business dealings. He has led an extraordinarily successful company that has performed beyond expectations since the merger of FAT Brands and Fog Cutter Capital in 2020,” defense lawyer Nicola Hanna told Beverly Press in May 2024. “We look forward to making clear in court that this is an unfortunate example of government overreach — and a case with no victims, no losses and no crimes.”

More indictments

The DOJ also filed another indictment in May 2024 against Wiederhorn, with the prosecutors on the case including Estrada and other prosecutors including Schleifer.

The indictment contended that, in December 2021, Wiederhorn had “knowingly possessed a firearm” and had done so knowing he had previously been convicted of a felony. The Department of Labor website states that, two decades ago, Wiederhorn pled guilty to “unlawful payment of a gratuity and the filing of a false tax return” and was sentenced to 18 months in prison and $2 million in restitution in 2004.

Wiederhorn pleaded not guilty in the gun charge case as well, and said in court pleadings that the gun belonged to his son.

L.A. Magazine reported in February 2022 –two years before a DOJ indictment was made public — that Wiederhorn “is under investigation by federal authorities on allegations of securities and wire fraud, money laundering, and attempted tax evasion.”

FEC records indicate that Wiederhorn donated thousands of dollars to Trump-affiliated campaign groups in 2023 and 2024. During that timeframe, he gave $6,600 to the Never Surrender PAC, $5,000 to the Save America PAC, $10,000 to the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, and $29,789.65 to the Trump National Committee Joint Fundraising Committee.

Battling the FAT fraud case

In the fraud-based case, the DOJ sought in March to gain access to records that Wiederhorn’s team contended were protected by attorney-client privilege. The judge would block the prosecution’s efforts in that regard.

“When FAT’s outside auditors grew concerned and requested ‘more details’ from FAT’s counsel, Allen Sussman, ‘to support’ the fraudulent representations that the funds flowing to Wiederhorn were permissible and that ‘the loans’ from FAT to FOG were not flowing to Wiederhorn ‘personally,’ Wiederhorn emailed Sussman, who then emailed FAT’s outside auditors the ‘support’ they’d requested,” the DOJ said in a March motion brought by Schleifer and other prosecutors. “Some six weeks later, Sussman emailed an additional ‘Memo to [the] FAT Board,’ about ‘the Intercompany Loan’ between FAT and FOG to which Wiederhorn adverted when he sent a materially misleading ‘supplement’ to that email to FAT’s Board. Sussman’s communications turned out to be critical in mollifying FAT’s board and its outside auditors, and ultimately permitted Wiederhorn to siphon another $8 million from FAT’s coffers. FAT has improperly asserted privileges over both of these critical documents.”

The DOJ’s filing also included a declaration from Schleifer as well as exhibits which currently had “Attorney-Client Privilege” redactions.

Wiederhorn’s defense team submitted a court filing later in March opposing the DOJ’s efforts to gain access to the documents which they argued were protected by privilege.

The defense lawyers called it a “first of its kind prosecution of FAT Brands Inc.” and argued that “the Government attempts to both preempt and chill FAT from staging a legal defense by seeking privileged documents under a ‘crime fraud’ theory.”

The defense team added: “Its basis for this claim appears to be that because FAT and its then CEO, Andy Wiederhorn, have been charged with a crime, ipse dixit, the crime-fraud exception must apply. This is not the law. It is especially not the law where the alleged crime – the extension of a line of credit in the form of a personal loan from publicly traded companies to their directors or executive officers – is one with little precedent or guidance. To make its claim against FAT, and its related crime fraud argument to seek privileged documents, the Government relies on misstatements and mischaracterizations of the facts.”

Legal filings galore

“The Government has put three documents at issue: (1) Exhibit A, an email from FAT’s outside counsel to its auditors; (2) Exhibit B, an email from the CEO and Chairman of the Board of FAT to its outside counsel; and (3) Exhibit C, a memorandum from FAT’s outside counsel to its board of directors. Exhibits B and C are quintessentially privileged documents which the government has no basis to obtain other than its flimsy ‘crime-fraud’ argument,” Wiederhorn’s defense team said. “To narrow the parties’ dispute and avoid burdening the Court, FAT will withdraw its work product claim over Exhibit A and will voluntarily produce the analysis and emails in that exhibit because they are not otherwise privileged.”

The defense team argued: “The Government failed to meet and confer in advance of filing this motion, otherwise the dispute over Exhibit A would not have been raised to the Court. The Government’s failure to meet and confer directly violates the local rules and is a sufficient ground to deny the motion.”

“Its attempt to characterize these documents as ‘crime-fraud’ seems designed to have maximum chilling effect on the professionals who FAT relied on to guide its decisions on the loans and disclosures,” the defense team claimed, adding that the email in question “is indicative of outside auditors and outside counsel doing the exact job they were hired to do, not advice provided in furtherance of an ongoing unlawful scheme. For the Government to suggest otherwise impugns the professionals who were doing their best in an area without legal clarity, and — whether intentional or not — chills their testimony.”

Judge Gary Klausner, a nominee of President George W. Bush in 2002, sided against Schleifer and the DOJ and with Wiederhorn’s defense team, ruling that “the Court DENIES the Motion” brought by the federal prosecutors.

The judge noted in that decision that “the government failed to meet and confer before bringing its Motion, so it did not know that FAT was no longer asserting privilege over Exhibit A (a point that the government briefed extensively in its Motion). Having learned this fact from FAT’s Opposition, the government uses the content of Exhibit A and introduces other new evidence in its Reply Brief to help make the showing required for in camera review of Exhibits B and C. But this is improper, and the Court declines these arguments in fairness to FAT.”

Klausner also picked apart other arguments made by the Justice Department.

“First, it points to the fact that FAT’s outside auditors asked for ‘comfort’ from Sussman regarding Wiederhorn’s interpretations of why his loans were permissible,” the judge wrote. “The government does not explain, however, why this auditor request implies that Wiederhorn’s email forwarding the request to Sussman (Exhibit B) or Sussman’s later memo to the board (Exhibit C) may reveal evidence that the crime-fraud exception applies. Instead, the government appears to suggest that because Wiederhorn received pressure regarding his alleged scheme and conferred with counsel, all of his communications with counsel and all of counsel’s work product are subject to review because the alleged scheme continued. The Court declines to endorse this sort of imposition on the attorney-client privilege.”

“Second, the government points to Wiederhorn’s email ‘supplement’ to Sussman’s memo to the board. It argues that since Wiederhorn’s email supplement contains misrepresentations, Sussman’s memo to the board (Exhibit C) must too,” Klausner wrote in his ruling, adding that “the trouble is, however, the government provides no evidence that Wiederhorn made any misrepresentations in that supplement. While it asserts that Wiederhorn’s supplement did not disclose that he would route most of the funds he asked FAT to extend to FOG to himself, it provides no evidence that Wiederhorn actually did such that his failing to mention it was misleading.”

The judge concluded: “The Court cannot simply defer to the allegations in the Indictment. While the evidentiary burden on the party requesting review is ‘relatively minimal’… the government must make some evidentiary showing… The government has failed to meet its burden… Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.”

The case is still ongoing, and further hearings are slated for May.

Controversy about the gun charge

In the gun charge case, the DOJ battled throughout March to block efforts by the Wiederhorn defense team to delay the scheduled trial date in the gun case. The case has seen much bickering between the parties, filing lengthy documents against each other. 

The defense lawyers repeatedly asserted that the gun charge was wrong and had emerged from improper DOJ behavior tied to the fraud case search of Wiederhorn’s home. After a lengthy back-and-forth in court filings, the judge handling this case sided with the defense team in moving the gun charge trial start date from July 2025 to January 2026.

Emails made public in court filings show that defense lawyer Douglas Fuchs emailed Schleifer in February to let him know they planned to ask the judge to push back the trial date. Schleifer replied, “Good evening, We oppose any continuance of the 922(g) trial.” Defense lawyer Daniel Nowicki also emailed the prosecutors later that month, saying, “Given Adam’s statement that you oppose any continuance, we assume you oppose our application, but please let us know if we’re mistaken.” Schleifer again said, “Yes, we oppose.”

The defense team argued to the court in late February that Wiederhorn “intends to challenge the validity of the December 1, 2021 search warrant, alleging that it contains several misstatements and omissions, including, as previously stated, reliance on a forged IRS document.” The filing would also call this IRS document “obviously forged.”

The defense lawyers also argued that the DOJ “still has not produced all outstanding discovery.” Wiederhorn’s lawyers said that this justified pushing back the trial date.

His legal team contended in court filings that “the government has still not produced notes taken by agents during the search of Mr. Wiederhorn’s home which resulted in the seizure of the gun at issue—which are relevant because the government has taken conflicting positions regarding when Mr. Wiederhorn was interrogated about the gun (putting the credibility of the government’s agents at issue), with some reports saying Mr. Wiederhorn was interrogated in his driveway while surrounded by agents (which is true) and other reports claiming he was asked about the gun at his kitchen table (which is false).”

The defense team also contended that “the government has still not produced any discovery from 9 of the 11 devices it seized from Thayer Wiederhorn—Mr. Wiederhorn’s son, who told agents that the gun at issue was his.”

The defense lawyers said that “Mr. Wiederhorn intends to challenge the validity of the warrant (that was based on the government’s fraud investigation) that allowed the government to be at his house in the first place when it seized the gun.”

Schleifer and another federal prosecutor fought against the defense team’s efforts in a February court filing opposing a continuance of the trial.

“Perhaps owing to a strategic gambit by which he hoped to maneuver this trial to follow the fraud case, defendant waited for an additional month before seeking to continue the trial in this case,” Schleifer told the court. “Defendant [Wiederhorn] is therefore ‘the author of the crisis’ caused by any collision of the trial-motions deadline and a hearing on a motion to continue his trial.”

The DOJ added that “Defendant assumes that certain ‘notes’ exist and that he would be entitled to such notes if they did. Both assumptions are mistaken. As defendant knows…the government knows of no additional notes pending production at this time.” The DOJ also said that “similarly, defendant wrongfully assumes entitlement to full forensic copies of digital devices seized (pursuant to search warrants) not from him, but from his adult son.”

The DOJ also included a declaration from Schleifer to argue against a continuance.

Arguing about delays

The defense team added more allegations in a March court filing which continued to push for the trial date to be moved back.

“The government states that ‘[t]here were no firearms drawn nor any other coercion upon defendant’ when Mr. Wiederhorn made statements about the gun,” the defense team said. “Whether there was ‘coercion upon’ Mr. Wiederhorn when he made his statements is a legal conclusion that only this Court can determine. But security footage taken the morning of the search shows that nearly three dozen agents arrived with assault rifles drawn. It clearly was an intimidating and coercive environment.”

The defense team added that “the government’s story that Mr. Wiederhorn was interrogated twice about the gun — once in the driveway and once about thirty minutes later in his dining room — is false and nonsensical.”

The defense lawyers also said that “the government states there is no ‘forged IRS document.’ But again, whether the document is forged is an issue the Court should not decide in Mr. Wiederhorn’s motion to continue. However, the government is wrong.”

The March court filing included a declaration by defense lawyer Douglas Fuchs who said that “IRS Revenue Officer Anna Quach told the government that Mr. Wiederhorn’s tax attorney provided her with a 2018 Form 433-A. This is refuted by Mr. Wiederhorn’s tax attorney and his paralegal, both of whom submitted sworn affidavits to the government stating that they did not provide or review a Form 433-A during a June 2018 meeting with Ms. Quach. They further stated that they did not make a photocopy of a 2016 433-A and try to pass it off as a 2018 433-A and have never copied an old Form 433-A and presented it to the IRS as a new form in their many years of practice. Each stated that the purpose of the June 2018 meeting was to provide Ms. Quach with $500,000 toward Mr. Wiederhorn’s back taxes.”

The DOJ retorted with another court filing by Schleifer and other prosecutors in March, arguing that “at various points throughout the searches conducted at his home, defendant made multiple non-custodial, inculpatory statements concerning his knowledge and possession of the seized firearm, which was also registered to him.”

“The government has produced all evidence seized from digital devices taken from and owned by defendant’s son. … Because no evidence was seized from these devices, there is no discovery to produce,” the DOJ contended. “Nevertheless, complete forensic copies of these devices have been made available to the owner of these devices, defendant’s son.”

The DOJ also said that Wiederhorn “breezily asserts the warrant obtained in defendant’s Fraud Case relied upon ‘an obviously forged IRS document.’ As irrelevant as this allegation is to this prosecution under § 922(g), it is also totally untrue.” The DOJ insisted that Wiederhorn’s “submission of a duplicated form, which he re-dated and resubmitted to the IRS on June 12, 2018, was criminally fraudulent in part because, by copying and resubmitting a form from two years prior, he represented that his asset picture in 2018 was identical to the picture in 2016 (both forms fraudulently omitted assets and liabilities).”

And the DOJ again included a declaration from Schleifer opposing a continuance.

Judge Wesley L. Hsu, nominated by President Biden in 2023, sided with the defense team in an April ruling pushing the trial back half a year.

“The Court hereby finds that Mr. Wiederhorn’s Motion For Order Continuing Pretrial Motions Deadline And Trial Date, which this Court incorporates by reference into this Order, demonstrates facts that support a continuance of the trial date in this matter,” the judge said. “The Court further finds that: (i) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial; (ii) failure to grant the continuance would be likely to make a continuation of the proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice; (iii) the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the nature of the prosecution, and the existence of novel questions of law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself without the Defendant’s requested continuance; and (iv) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny defendant continuity of counsel and would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.”

The case is also ongoing, with further motions now due in August and September, but a trial now not scheduled to happen until early next year.

Regeneron controversy over billionaire father

Schleifer’s father is Leonard Schleifer, the CEO and founder of drugmaker Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Forbes estimated that Leonard Schleifer had a net worth of $2.3 billion as of late April 2025, and also owns 2% of the company’s common stock.

The Justice Department filed a complaint under the False Claims Act against Regeneron in April of last year, arguing that the pharmaceutical giant “fraudulently inflated Medicare reimbursement rates for Eylea by knowingly submitting false average sales price reports to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that excluded certain price concessions.”

“We will not permit pharmaceutical companies to flout price reporting requirements to maintain high drug prices,” then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said that month. “The department is committed to protecting federal healthcare programs from improper actions by drug companies or others that drive up the cost of those programs at the taxpayers’ expense.”

The Daily Mail first reported earlier this year that, in June 2024, two months after the DOJ filed its civil complaint, 25,000 company shares for Regeneron were sold — sending $25,383,828.68 to a trust “for the benefit of Adam P. Schleifer.”

SEC filings show three transactions in June 2024 indeed resulted in the sale of 25,000 shares for more than $25 million — with the money going to a “Trust f/b/o Adam P. Schleifer.”

Looking forward, Schleifer’s campaign will be challenging. Given the strong anti-billionaire sentiment so deeply ingrained into the far-left and the plethora of legal filings in ongoing cases, nabbing a congressional seat could be a high hurdle for him.