The Department of Justice purportedly launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, according to a CNN exclusive published Wednesday, and corporate media rushed to decry the supposed “weaponization” of justice against the writer who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault. Though the exact nature of the investigation remains uncertain, it’s well worth revisiting the facts that undermine Carroll’s half-baked anti-Trump hit job.
CNN reported that the investigation is centered on whether Carroll committed perjury. Prosecutors, CNN said, are focusing on a deposition Carroll provided in 2022 in which she said she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. Despite her testimony, it turns out billionaire Democrat donor Reid Hoffman paid some of her legal fees and expenses.
U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said in a statement that the Northern District of Illinois “has not opened — and has never opened — a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll,” though CNN said its “sources reaffirmed the investigation to CNN.” A source told Axios that the DOJ is actually investigating the Hoffman nonprofit organization that paid some of Carroll’s legal fees, and that Carroll “is not the subject of the investigation.”
Whether this reported investigation goes anywhere remains to be seen. But it does remind Americans just how deeply flawed and politically charged the entire case was from the very beginning.
Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman and then sued him for defamation when he denied it in 2019. Carroll notably declined to press criminal charges against Trump because, according to her, she “would find it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock.” Carroll then filed a second lawsuit in 2022 after the state of New York temporarily changed a statute of limitations law.
That was only one of many suspect aspects of the crusade against Trump.
Suit Was Bankrolled by Dem Mega Donor
The funding for Carroll’s lawsuit seems to be at the heart of the DOJ’s alleged investigation — even though, as CNN reported, Carroll once testified that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit.
In fact Carroll’s lawsuit wasn’t merely a private legal dispute; it was part of a broader political effort backed by a Democrat billionaire. Hoffman helped bankroll Carroll’s suit against Trump, according to The New York Times (which cited court documents), while Forbes reported that the Hoffman-backed nonprofit American Future Republic provided funding for the suit. Hoffman has helped fund lawsuits against Fox News and Newsmax, as well as a false information campaign that used “Russian tactics” to try and hurt a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.
Carroll Could Not Identify When the Alleged Incident Occurred
Carroll alleged the incident took place at Bergdof Goodman “23 years ago,” according to an excerpt from her book What Do We Need Men For? published in The Cut in 2019. That would place the alleged incident around 1996. New York Magazine also reported that “Carroll places the ensuing incident in late 1995 or early 1996.”
In other words, Carroll couldn’t give any specifics on when the alleged incident occurred. Trump himself pointed this out, saying: “She has no idea what day, what week, what month, what year” the alleged incident occurred. Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina argued, “Give me a date. … There’s calendars. There’s schedules. … We could see where he was. But of course, with no date, no month, no year, can’t present an alibi. Can’t call witnesses.”
Emails Show Carroll Told Friends About Grand Scheme to Get Trump Out of Office
In an email to Carroll from September 2017 — nearly two years before she went public with her allegations — her friend Carol Martin wrote: “This has to stop. As soon as we’re both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again,” with a link to a New Yorker column mocking Trump.
Carroll responded, “TOTALLY!!! I have something special for you when we meet.”
The email exchange happened just two weeks before Carroll began working on the book in which she publicly accused the president of rape, according to Business Insider.
Statute of Limitations Changed/New Law
In 2022 Carroll filed a second lawsuit literally minutes after New York’s Adult Survivors Act went into effect — for just one year. The law permitted adult survivors of sexual assault to file civil suits for alleged sexual assault no matter how long ago the incident happened, even if the normal statute of limitations had previously expired (as was the case with the actions of which Trump was accused). Carroll sued Trump for battery under the new law, plus more defamation. Carroll received a $5 million verdict for sexual abuse (not rape) and defamation.
Trump Was Held Liable for Denying the Allegation
Ultimately, Trump was held liable for merely denying the allegation. After Carroll’s allegations went public in 2019, Trump released a statement in which he categorically denied even meeting Carroll.
“She is trying to sell a new book; that should indicate her motivation,” Trump said. “It should be sold in the fiction section. Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for themselves or sell a book or carry out a political agenda.”
In a subsequent interview with The Hill, Trump said, “I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?”
Judge Lewis Kaplan issued a partial summary judgment in the 2019 defamation case ruling that Trump was liable for defamation based on his 2019 statements. The ruling came after Carroll won her second case that accused Trump of battery (after New York State temporarily changed its laws) and additional defamation — in other words, additional denials from the president. While the jury did not find Trump raped Carroll, they found he sexually abused her and awarded her $5 million. Therefore, his comments denying the incident were considered defamation.
To recap: A known anti-Trump Democrat mega-donor financed a lawsuit built on allegations by a woman who couldn’t remember the year of the purported assault, and a state changed its laws to facilitate the lawfare — all to assassinate the character of a sitting president who was punished for maintaining his innocence.
