Exclusive: Justice Department launches a criminal investigation into Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll


The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the former magazine columnist who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The investigation is focused on whether Carroll committed perjury in testimony tied to her two civil lawsuits against the president – one alleging he sexually abused Carroll in a New York department store in the mid-1990s, and a second for defaming her when in 2019 he repeatedly denied the assault, said she wasn’t his type and claimed she made it up to boost sales of a book.

Prosecutors’ theory hinges on a 2022 deposition statement by Carroll, 82, that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, though it was later revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses.

Carroll’s team declined to comment for this story. Attempts to reach Hoffman on Wednesday were unsuccessful.

The probe is the latest move in the department’s ceaseless, and somewhat strained, efforts to meet Trump’s demands to target his long-standing personal foes.

Under acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the department has pushed to speed up Trump’s campaign of retribution. But the cases he’s brought since taking the reins of the department in April have been heavily criticized and are likely to face challenges in court over allegations of politicization.

But Blanche has been recused from this matter because he worked as one of Trump’s personal attorneys on the Carroll appeals, according to a source familiar with the matter. Blanche has not attended meetings or been involved in discussions about the investigations, and the investigation is being overseen by other officials in the deputy attorney general’s office.

Senior leaders at the Justice Department referred the investigation to federal prosecutors in Chicago, according to two sources familiar with the matter. While Carroll’s deposition took place in New York, one of the individuals who helped cover some of Carroll’s legal fees, Hoffman, has a nonprofit based in Chicago.

Hoffman’s support of the case caught Trump’s attorneys off guard when it came to light on the eve of trial.

In a 2022 videotaped deposition, Carroll told then-Trump attorney Alina Habba that no one else was paying for her legal fees. But two weeks before the trial Carroll’s attorneys informed the judge and Trump’s lawyers that they secured funding from Hoffman’s nonprofit.

Carroll’s lawyers said she never met nor had conversations with anyone associated with the nonprofit. Habba said in court at the time that Carroll’s team “conspired to conceal the truth for nearly six months.”

The judge permitted Trump’s attorneys to question Carroll again in a deposition, which has not been made public.

When the trial began two weeks later Judge Lewis Kaplan said he saw no issue with Carroll’s credibility and blocked the lawyers from asking about Hoffman’s funding.

Caroll is still embroiled in multiple legal battles with the president. Juries awarded Carroll millions of dollars in damages, which the president is appealing. Trump has appealed the $5 million sexual abuse case judgement to the Supreme Court and has pledged to do the same with the $83 million defamation case.

The Supreme Court has deferred its decision on whether to take up Trump’s appeal twelve times. The most recent deferral was made Wednesday morning.


In a different case, the president unsuccessfully asked for the Justice Department to join the case as a defendant so that he could argue he is immune from liability. An appeals court panel of judges said the argument was raised too late in the legal process.

Well done President Trump! It never set well with me how the DNC uses rape allegations by various women to target their political opponents, like they did with Clarence Thomas, like they did with Kavanaugh, and like they did with Trump. So, we are led to believe that they waited all these years to seek justice? No, they are just seeking to unseat political figures they detest is all.

Enough!!

Some may say that Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department for going after Carell, but what about Carell weaponizing the Judicial system to target Trump? It had to be done.

:clap2:
This goes well beyond Trump. Make no mistake about it, this tactic is a tactic the demafasict have fully embraced

Making false accusations, using big Dem donors to pay for lawsuits and try to bury your political rival

It’s backfired bigly because Trump had enough money to fight back and now as president hah DOJ is exposing the operation
 
She had nothing to do with the funds they asked her about. Her lawyers solicited and received the funds entirely on their own.
I agree she was merely a pawn used by the corrupt demafasict…the Michael Avenattis of the Dem party
 
Some may say that Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department for going after Carell, but what about Carell weaponizing the Judicial system to target Trump? It had to be done.
Of course some may say trumpnis weaponizing the DOJ. Because he is. Carell made her case in court. It’s not an apples to apples thing
 
The rape-in-the-fitting room accusation was absurd from the get-go. It could never have happened as described, and ONLY IN MANHATTAN would it have not been tossed out before ever going to trial.
The dems in NY literally changed the law so that the case could even be brought

It’s a clear violation of a defendants constitutional right to due process

Someone like Trump can’t even defend themselves because someone like Carrol doesn’t have to say when her accusation even took place
 
What threat to the nation does E. Jean Carroll pose to warrant DoJ resources being spent on a criminal investigation of her?
 
What threat to the nation does E. Jean Carroll pose to warrant DoJ resources being spent on a criminal investigation of her?
Of course you don’t think perjury is a threat to the rule of law and our republic

Shoukd we be surprised you think lying, let alone under oath, isn’t a big deal

Sick
 
MSNOW is reporting the focus of the investigation is actually Dem donor Reed Hoffman and the possibility of money laundering with his non-profit.
 
Federal prosecution for perjury occurs under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.

The Department of Justice is a Federal Agency charged with enforcing Federal law.

The claimed subject of the investigation is Carroll not disclosing non-profit support for the case in a state level deposition in a state level civil defamation suit.
.
.
.
.
.
Question:
Does the DOJ even have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute state level perjury claims in a non-federal case?

WW

If the DOJ is investigating E. Jean Carroll, the facts could stand in its way​

Just more than three years ago this month, writer E. Jean Carroll won the first of two jury trials against President Donald Trump for defamation and sexual abuse, trials through which she was ultimately awarded more than $88 million in damages. Now, as first reported by CNN and confirmed by MS NOW, she is under investigation by Trump’s Justice Department.

According to CNN, the DOJ is looking into whether Carroll lied under oath when she testified, at an October 2022 deposition, that her lawyers were handling her case on contingency and that no one else was paying her legal fees, “though it was later revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses.”

The Washington Post has since reported — and as two people familiar with the situation have told MS NOW — that Hoffman and his nonprofit, American Future Republic, are the investigation’s real targets while acknowledging that prosecutors are “expected to look” at Carroll’s statements.

Whether Carroll is the focus of that investigation or collateral damage remains in dispute. But either way, a closer examination of the underlying facts and events illustrates how difficult it would be for the DOJ to show that Carroll committed perjury, which requires proof — beyond a reasonable doubt — that the defendant both knowingly made a false statement and that the statement was material, meaning it was capable of influencing the jury’s decision-making.

Specifically, it was not just “revealed” that Hoffman paid some of Carroll’s legal fees and expenses, but rather disclosed by Carroll’s counsel in a letter sent to Trump’s legal team in April 2023 on the eve of the first trial.

“During the course of preparing for her testimony at trial, Ms. Carroll has recollected additional information,” they wrote. “While Ms. Carroll stands by that testimony about this case being a contingency case, she now recalls that at some point her counsel secured additional funding from a nonprofit organization to offset certain expenses and legal fees.”

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, provided additional details the next day in a failed attempt to quell the Trump team’s concerns. Kaplan explained that months after filing Carroll’s initial lawsuit, she and the other lawyers representing Carroll obtained the nonprofit’s financial support but that Carroll herself “has never met and has never been party to any communications (written or oral) with anyone associated with that nonprofit or its financial supporters.”

 

If the DOJ is investigating E. Jean Carroll, the facts could stand in its way​

Just more than three years ago this month, writer E. Jean Carroll won the first of two jury trials against President Donald Trump for defamation and sexual abuse, trials through which she was ultimately awarded more than $88 million in damages. Now, as first reported by CNN and confirmed by MS NOW, she is under investigation by Trump’s Justice Department.

According to CNN, the DOJ is looking into whether Carroll lied under oath when she testified, at an October 2022 deposition, that her lawyers were handling her case on contingency and that no one else was paying her legal fees, “though it was later revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses.”

The Washington Post has since reported — and as two people familiar with the situation have told MS NOW — that Hoffman and his nonprofit, American Future Republic, are the investigation’s real targets while acknowledging that prosecutors are “expected to look” at Carroll’s statements.

Whether Carroll is the focus of that investigation or collateral damage remains in dispute. But either way, a closer examination of the underlying facts and events illustrates how difficult it would be for the DOJ to show that Carroll committed perjury, which requires proof — beyond a reasonable doubt — that the defendant both knowingly made a false statement and that the statement was material, meaning it was capable of influencing the jury’s decision-making.

Specifically, it was not just “revealed” that Hoffman paid some of Carroll’s legal fees and expenses, but rather disclosed by Carroll’s counsel in a letter sent to Trump’s legal team in April 2023 on the eve of the first trial.

“During the course of preparing for her testimony at trial, Ms. Carroll has recollected additional information,” they wrote. “While Ms. Carroll stands by that testimony about this case being a contingency case, she now recalls that at some point her counsel secured additional funding from a nonprofit organization to offset certain expenses and legal fees.”

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, provided additional details the next day in a failed attempt to quell the Trump team’s concerns. Kaplan explained that months after filing Carroll’s initial lawsuit, she and the other lawyers representing Carroll obtained the nonprofit’s financial support but that Carroll herself “has never met and has never been party to any communications (written or oral) with anyone associated with that nonprofit or its financial supporters.”

No. It’s the facts that would **** her up.

Well, more than she already is.

Bug, you chump, I tell ya: perjury is still a crime. You twit.
 

If the DOJ is investigating E. Jean Carroll, the facts could stand in its way​

Just more than three years ago this month, writer E. Jean Carroll won the first of two jury trials against President Donald Trump for defamation and sexual abuse, trials through which she was ultimately awarded more than $88 million in damages. Now, as first reported by CNN and confirmed by MS NOW, she is under investigation by Trump’s Justice Department.

According to CNN, the DOJ is looking into whether Carroll lied under oath when she testified, at an October 2022 deposition, that her lawyers were handling her case on contingency and that no one else was paying her legal fees, “though it was later revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses.”

The Washington Post has since reported — and as two people familiar with the situation have told MS NOW — that Hoffman and his nonprofit, American Future Republic, are the investigation’s real targets while acknowledging that prosecutors are “expected to look” at Carroll’s statements.

Whether Carroll is the focus of that investigation or collateral damage remains in dispute. But either way, a closer examination of the underlying facts and events illustrates how difficult it would be for the DOJ to show that Carroll committed perjury, which requires proof — beyond a reasonable doubt — that the defendant both knowingly made a false statement and that the statement was material, meaning it was capable of influencing the jury’s decision-making.

Specifically, it was not just “revealed” that Hoffman paid some of Carroll’s legal fees and expenses, but rather disclosed by Carroll’s counsel in a letter sent to Trump’s legal team in April 2023 on the eve of the first trial.

“During the course of preparing for her testimony at trial, Ms. Carroll has recollected additional information,” they wrote. “While Ms. Carroll stands by that testimony about this case being a contingency case, she now recalls that at some point her counsel secured additional funding from a nonprofit organization to offset certain expenses and legal fees.”

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, provided additional details the next day in a failed attempt to quell the Trump team’s concerns. Kaplan explained that months after filing Carroll’s initial lawsuit, she and the other lawyers representing Carroll obtained the nonprofit’s financial support but that Carroll herself “has never met and has never been party to any communications (written or oral) with anyone associated with that nonprofit or its financial supporters.”

Yes, as I mentioned, I think we all know Jean “rape is sexy” Carroll is a loony pawn of the larger corrupt demafasict operation

She’s not the target nor as big a threat to democracy as the demafasict oligarchs
 
Federal prosecution for perjury occurs under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.

The Department of Justice is a Federal Agency charged with enforcing Federal law.

The claimed subject of the investigation is Carroll not disclosing non-profit support for the case in a state level deposition in a state level civil defamation suit.
.
.
.
.
.
Question:
Does the DOJ even have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute state level perjury claims in a non-federal case?

WW
Since the cases were heard in Federal Court, your concern seems at least a whole lot overwrought.
 
I say ….Bring it on

But to maintain impartiality, the Justice Dept needs to investigate false claims Trump made during that trial.
Things like he never knew E Jean Carrol

View attachment 1262246
He may have met her once. It isn’t surprising that he didn’t remember her.
 
15th post
At the risk of being objective to a fault, if she lied under oath in state court, that doesn’t automatically mean that it ends up being a federal crime even though the cases were heard in federal court.

And an even bigger question remains. Was her lie under oath actually material to the proceeding? That too is legally debatable. But, if it was not “material” to the issues at trial, it may not qualify as “perjury,” anyway.
 
At the risk of being objective to a fault, if she lied under oath in state court, that doesn’t automatically mean that it ends up being a federal crime even though the cases were heard in federal court.

And an even bigger question remains. Was her lie under oath actually material to the proceeding? That too is legally debatable. But, if it was not “material” to the issues at trial, it may not qualify as “perjury,” anyway.
"Objective to a fault".....shit, you'll never have to worry about that, Trump cuck.

Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting over 20 women...they are not all lying. You don't have an objective bone in your body.
 
Back
Top Bottom