E. Jean Carroll is being investigated by the DOJ
Why is Carroll being investigated at this late date? Apparently it’s for conspiracy and perjury about who funded her:
According to [Byron] York, the probe appears to zero in on the very origins of Carroll’s case – a story that traces back to a swanky Manhattan ‘Resistance party’ where anti-Trump operatives, deep-pocketed donors, and eager lawyers cooked up the defamation lawsuit that later ballooned into a full-blown battery claim under New York’s specially tailored Adult Survivors Act.
Carroll’s story of rape never passed the smell test, for a host of reasons I and many others have written about before. You can read York’s own effort from 2023 here. In summary: her accusations against Trump were incredibly weak and both politically and financially motivated, in addition to being a reflection of Carroll’s quest for notoriety.
But her accusations aren’t the issue now except tangentially. The issue is her funding:
On the reported criminal investigation of E. Jean Carroll — this is apparently what it is about. From April 2023, "Carroll v. Trump: The rape case that started at a Resistance party." https://t.co/yszo2259QM pic.twitter.com/XCdEBgcliT
— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 28, 2026
If you don’t have access to X:
There’s also this, which downplays the perjury aspect and focuses on other irregularities and possible charges:
The probe is focused on a trust founded by billionaire Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, whose nonprofit helped pay some of Carroll’s legal costs, two sources said. Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, is an outspoken critic of Trump.
The crimes under investigation are possible money laundering, obstruction, and conspiracy, one of the sources said. Investigators are also looking into a possible perjury charge against Carroll related to her testimony in the lawsuits, the source said, but it’s not the main focus of the probe.
Will a prosecution come from this? I doubt it, but it’s possible.
And, when has the DOJ previously concerned itself with matters of perjury during a deposition for a civil case in state court?
I won’t defend E. Jean Carroll in any way, shape or form, but open your eyes. This is yet another gross abuse of power by Trump.
This idiotic case has completely destroyed the credibility of our legal system. I don’t care what Trump does.
Bauxite (7:19 pm) said: “This is yet another gross abuse of power by Trump.”
As long as the enemy brings a gun to the ongoing fight while our side brings a butter knife playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules, Bauxite is essentially correct.
But at some point, we need to do to them as they’ve been doing to us for decades. Otherwise, our side will continue to congenially let byones be bygones, while the enemy is not-so-congenially licking their chops and reloading for their next volley of bullets.
They’re playing for *all* the marbles, Bauxite, now and forever, and our side has *got* to be equally serious — dead serious — or else it’s already all over.
CC™-R sees everything through his Ahab filters.
Baghdad Bauxite h/t Turtler
CBS now saying their source has changed their story. It is not Carroll being investigated.
To me it sounds like this was deliberately misreported to fool people like Bauxite, but I’m cynical about journalism.
Late night update on the story from Red State – what the heck is going on and why did CBS blow it?
Did anyone CHECK on this story before posting it today??
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2026/05/28/what-gives-illinois-usa-denies-they-are-heading-the-e-jean-carroll-investigation-n2202818
There have been so many hideous abuses of the legal system to injure Trump, his counsel, and his supporters that complaints about this are twee.
==
It looks like the target of the investigation is the progressive non-profit that funded some of Carroll’s litigation, and not Carroll herself, hence the conflicting reports.
I’m still not sure what crime the non-profit might have committed. There’s nothing illegal about funding someone else’s litigation.
I stand by my original comment. If lawfare is wrong, it’s also wrong when the “good guys” do it to the “bad guys.” The problem with the lawfare against Trump, including the Carroll suit, was that it cheapened and degraded the legal system, not just that it was “them” doing it to “us.” Trump and his supporters, apparently, disagree.
Of course CC™-R stands by his original … whatever.
He has never been known to be …. whatever.
Misdiagnosis by Ahab.
This should apply… “Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus.”
@ Bauxite > “If lawfare is wrong, it’s also wrong when the “good guys” do it to the “bad guys.” The problem with the lawfare against Trump, including the Carroll suit, was that it cheapened and degraded the legal system, ”
Your first sentence is true, and applies to more than this one political and legal process. Your second problem is also true, but corollary.
The primary problem with the lawfare against Trump was that it was explicitly purposed and put in action to obstruct his presidential actions (2016-2020) and suppress all three of his campaigns.
It is not “lawfare” to investigate actual law breaking, even against political opponents, so long as the rules of due process are followed and the prosecution is not manipulated into becoming punitive harassment.
The Democrats, to the contrary, elevated imagined innuendo into intensive “investigation” (Russia dossier); created new laws or amended old ones just to indict him (Carroll); manufactured causes and complaints where none existed (real estate loan); tortured “evidence” in ways not used against other similarly-situated people (Biden’s classified documents); employed dramatic actions by LEOs that had never (or very seldom) been used before against any high government official, much less a president (Mar-a-lago raid; mugshot; courtroom appearances and commenting gags); and still failed to unearth any concrete criminal actions by President Trump.
AesopFan:
Well done.
It is possible, depending upon the stated purpose of the non-profit, that funding a lawsuit like this violates its charitable purpose. I’d have to know what the non-profit is and look at its 990 to have any idea if this is the case. Probably that’s what the inquiry is doing.
nik: “To me it sounds like this was deliberately misreported to fool people like Bauxite”
Gee you don’t have to work *that* hard to fool bauxy. But yes, almost everything reported about Trump in the MFM is a lie.
Shorter bauxy: Whatever Trump did was wrong. Even if he didn’t actually do it.
Bauxite (12:30 pm) said: “If lawfare is wrong, it’s also wrong when the ‘good guys’ do it to the ‘bad guys.'”
At some point, it goes beyond mommy’s moralizing — I write this not to belittle Bauxite’s point, but because it’s the sort of lesson my mommy would impress on me relating to the schoolyard and the playground and the street.
Mommy was normally 100 percent right in these instances, but [time to invoke Godwin’s Law?] even mommy was all in favor of the Allies defeating the Axis powers in World War II, including at the very least surreptitious spying and misleading the enemy. I don’t think mommy was overthinking things in the 1940s when she was okay with an exception to “If XYZ is wrong, it’s also wrong when the ‘good guys’ do it to the ‘bad guys.'”
USA is careening towards a literal existential situation with respect to both islam and wokeitude (an M J R invented term). It’s us versus them in a fight to the death.
The hoary old cliché is that “all’s fair in love and war,” but in a literal existential war, it’s a truism. If the “good guys” keep turning the other cheek — well, I’ve already urged essentially this point earlier, take it or leave it, and there’s no need to reiterate.
The only flaw in my case, as I see it, is that Bauxite either
– does not see it as a struggle to the death with respect to both islam and wokeitude,
or
– prefers a moral high ground to us doing what it takes to prevail or at least hold our own.
Either way, he [?] and I disagree profoundly. Shall we leave it at that?
AesopFan (2:09 am) said: “Late night update on the story from Red State – what the heck is going on and why did CBS blow it?
I’d like to advance the hypothesis that CBS did what it did deliberately, knowing that a lie gallops ’round the world before truth straps on its boots.
What was to be gained? The lie gets CBS’s side’s base further inflamed and keeps alive the indispensible (for them) Hate Trump stench. Keeping it going and stoking the flames is an imperative for their side.
All *speculation* from M J R, do with it what you will.
Cbs has failed in libeling the cajun navy relief this matter and the last apparently epstein enabler hoffman is part of the intimidation campaign against the america 250 crew,
Abusing and corrupting the legal system demands accountability dont you think
A rhetorical question he values his white togas over justice and accountability