Trump’s Retribution Tour Targets E. Jean Carroll
[guest post by Dana]
Don’t call her a victim, whatever you do. She is an enemy of the revenge-driven Trump, and therefore deserves payback:
The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the 82-year-old former magazine writer who accused Donald J. Trump of sexual assault, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation.
The investigation is believed to center on whether Ms. Carroll committed perjury in civil lawsuits against Mr. Trump, according to the person, who requested anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Ms. Carroll won a $5 million civil judgment against Mr. Trump that he had sexually abused and defamed her, which the president last November asked the Supreme Court to overturn.
I’m pretty sure this falls under the weaponization of the Justice Dept. Trump has so many perceived enemies that that it’ll take the next decade to pay back even half of those on the list. If you recall, retribution was a consistent theme of his campaign. Reuters reported at least 470 potentialTrump targets. Fortunately, he doesn’t have that much time left in office. Unfortunately, if a MAGA faithful manages to take the White House in 2028, who know if he will still be still be pulling the strings of agencies, like the DOJ, that can effectively wreak massive havoc on his behalf.
This:
There is no plausible argument that E. Jean Carroll – whose testimony was found credible by multiple juries – is a reasonable target for a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. They’re not even pretending at this point: this is just an attempt at payback by Trump.
Trump has turned the U.S. Department of Justice into his own personal law firm and tasked it with going after his enemies. Reprehensible, if all too predictable.
Apparently, going after one for perjury in a civil lawsuit is very uncommon:
Federal perjury investigations for testimony in civil cases are incredibly rare. Nearly unheard of. And I have absolutely never heard of one launched against the prevailing party in a case.
Wanton and open corruption.
In other words, just a vengeful Trump being who he told us he was.
—Dana
Hello.
Dana (c8cac2) — 5/27/2026 @ 7:14 pmPreviously posted on the Open Thread:
Rip Murdock (57a96f) — 5/27/2026 @ 7:53 pmThe alleged perjury apparently has nothing to do with her testimony against President Trump.
It’s hard to see how this would be “material” to whether she was assaulted by the President.
Rip Murdock (57a96f) — 5/27/2026 @ 8:07 pmThe investigation does not seem to be an effort to relitigate the claims in the case.
The Q appears to be if she lied when she testified before trial that no one was paying her legal fees and costs. She later conceded that billionaire Reid Hoffman was paying some or all of them. But the fact of someone else paying for her fees and costs was something Trump was able to mention at trial for whatever hit on credibility that amounted to, unless prevented by the judge. So its not clear what the effect of the alleged perjury was if it was perjury.
Maybe the issue is that the admission that someone else was paying her legal fees came too late for him to seek discovery about that. To maybe buttress a defense that Reid Hoffman was out to get him, funded the lawsuit, and to gain access to any conversations and emails between Carroll and Hoffman, arguing that they are not covered by the attorney-client privilege.
But if the trial judge considered that important, he presumably could have allowed discovery close to trial or continued the trial if asked. So, the importance of the belated concession isn’t clear.
Carrol would presumably say that she wasn’t being paid when first asked at deposition, or that she “forgot” when she was asked. The latter isn’t persuasive but again, the impact of it is not apparent.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (8cb897) — 5/27/2026 @ 8:25 pmI suppose Trump is still angry that he thought he could get away with grabbing a woman by the pizda with repercussion, but karma’s a btch, he still owes her scores of millions.
Paul Montagu (f13a2c) — 5/27/2026 @ 8:49 pm…without repercussion…
Paul Montagu (f13a2c) — 5/27/2026 @ 8:50 pmIts called hardball. Corporate establishment democrats and their donors prefer soft ball. Donors say be a punching bag to d.n.c. Strongly worded letters only! And remember when aipac says jump schumer & jefferies you ask how high? Democrat party establishment’s number one enemy is Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani and their ecomoic populism as they say at least trump won’t raise are taxes.
asset (fe0be5) — 5/28/2026 @ 1:28 amGist of story:
David Longfellow (057ff2) — 5/28/2026 @ 4:26 amLiar gets investigated.
TDS sufferers jump to conclusions.
Business as usual.
Investigating whether Carroll committed perjury over who was funding her lawsuit is a pretty thin reed to conduct a perjury investigation, especially since Trump denies the assault ever took place.
Since her legal team informed the court two weeks before the trial that Hoffman was funding the case, and the judge allowed Trump’s lawyers to question Carroll a second time (a deposition that hasn’t been made public), again, I’m not sure what the materiality is to the main case. My guess that any indictment will end up being dismissed like the Comey or James indictments.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2026 @ 8:56 amIs there a prohibition against a wealth benefactor, who happens to be extremely partisan, funding civil cases unrelated to the benefactor?
I don’t think there is.
The bigger issue, is when this self-same benefactor advocated, and got NY state politicians to temporarily adjust the statute of limitation that allowed this civil cases to begin in the first place. But, even then, I’m not quite sure that it, itself, was illegal as it was open to any claims.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/28/2026 @ 9:15 amAgain, this is the cycle.
If you don’t want lawfare, don’t engage in it.
The other shoe does drop at some point.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/28/2026 @ 9:16 amSee Peter Thiel’s funding The Hulk’s lawsuit against Gawker.
Facts not evidence. What did Reid Hoffman do to induce the NY legislature?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2026 @ 9:50 am10, you know they never see the “other shoe.” Bookish marxists and supportive socialists never saw the possibility of Stalin, and were always flummoxed when they were being dragged up concrete stairs to be shot in Lubyianka prison, thinking some mistake had been made.
As deluded as that NYT opinion writer, Friedman, babbling on in 2009 about how the “reasonably enlightened” autocracy” in China could enact needed social policies while his own democracy was tied down with all its messy procedures.
Leftists now are just as sure that history started today: Democrats ecstatic when Reid abolshed the filibuster for some judges in 2013. But when the GOP did the same for the Big Court, they came unglued!
Campus Socialists cheered the prosecution of endless numbers of a president’s associates, applauded as he was accused of being a russian asset, and prosecuted in multiple cases. Outraged in 2026 that he prosecuted some people.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 5/28/2026 @ 10:33 am@11
Apples and Oranges.
There were no obvious partisanship on Thiel’s part funding Hulk’s lawsuit.
Just like there wasn’t partisanship on Musks funding Carano (who didn’t need the money) against Disney.
Hoffman’s funding Carrol is very obviously because of Hoffman’s partisanship.
I don’t recall the Hoffman’s non-profit’s name, but there was some advocacy by his non-profile (or maybe from Hoffman’s SuperPAC…).
Consider this:
Recall that NY State deliberately suspended the statute of limitations for one year via New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which was conveniently active from Nov. 24, 2022, to Nov. 24, 2023. Carroll filed her suit within minutes of Gov. Kathy Hochul signing the Act into law. Why, it’s almost as if the whole thing was choreographed!
Imagine that Rip!
Democrat megadonor Hoffman pumped $7 million into the legal venture via his American Future Republic nonprofit, which gave the payola to Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, for fees and expenses.
This was a political coordination.
I doubt there’s anything illegal in this… but, its definitely scummy politics.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/28/2026 @ 11:31 amThere was a revenge factor, as Gawker had outed Thiel as gay in 2007.
So what? It’s not like the NY legislature needed any incentive to be anti-Trump.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2026 @ 11:47 amShocking to see that Trump supporters with some level of integrity view this action as justified.
Time123 (5400d2) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:05 pmKeep in mind that the scummy politics allowed a victim of sexual assault
Time123 (5400d2) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:08 pmTo get a measure of justice from a self admitted sexual predator
I’m shocked that Trump supporters are worried about “scummy politics”.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:08 pm@16
Keep in mind that some partisans will believe anything, so long as it confirms their priors, no matter how likely it’s true.
There’s a word for that.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:17 pm@17
On this very forum, I’ve been a broken record this.
What goes around, comes around.
Toldya so.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:18 pmYes. You’ve been consistent in your position that bad things Trump does are justified responses to Democrat actions.
Time123 (537c85) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:42 pm@18 I found her claims credible in light of the evidence and the jury believed her. Take it up with the
Time123 (537c85) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:44 pm“Shocking to see that Trump supporters with some level of integrity view this action as justified.”
No. They view it as “historically normal, utterly predictable, and a source of outrage only to those who viewed the prior instigating acts as just politics.”
Time123 (5400d2) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:05 pm
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 5/28/2026 @ 12:54 pmSo you’re good with this a action?
Time123 (537c85) — 5/28/2026 @ 1:00 pmAgain, so what. E. Jean Carroll wasn’t the only one who took advantage of the Adult Survivors Act. Over 1,400 lawsuits were filed against the State of New York against the NY Department of Corrections by female prisoners alleging guards sexually assaulted them while in custody. Nearly 1,400 lawsuits were filed against private defendants, such as Bill Cosby, Sean Combs, and former governor Andrew Cuomo. NYC hospitals were named as defendants in at least 300 lawsuits.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2026 @ 2:45 pmMore on the E. Jean Carroll investigation:
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2026 @ 3:09 pmRip Murdock (57a96f) — 5/27/2026 @ 8:07 pm
he issue would be did the partisan funder suborn perjury – did he tell her what to say?
Questioning of E. Jean Carroll by Trump’s lawyers did not elicit a confession out of her.
Maybe he has better evidence now.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/28/2026 @ 3:09 pmQuestioning directed at uncovering perjury about her claims would go at their communications – but there could be attorney-client privilege involved so maybe they were not able to cross examine her on that. Trump has always maintained that the accusation is implausible.
Now they may have found that she told lies about her contacts with the funder – which could be close to champerty except that champerty maybe needs to involve a financial interest in the litigation.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/28/2026 @ 3:15 pmWe’ll see.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2026 @ 3:31 pm“Champerty” in the United States isn’t consider criminal or a tort.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2026 @ 3:33 pmI thought that champerty was probably no longer a law in any case, like lawyers advertising.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/28/2026 @ 3:40 pmAll that the immediate filing does is prove that E. Jean’s Carroll’s lawyers were prepared, not that they were the reason for the change in law like some people tried to say later to ignorant people..
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/28/2026 @ 3:43 pm23, Not in the abstract. Criminal investigations for sport are not OK.
But it seems that the object is not to punish Carrol, but is aimed at Hoffman’s non-profit that provided the funding. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/28/e-jean-carroll-doj-trump-reid-hoffman. If that non-profit violated some law, then “no one is above the law.”
Also lacking sympathy for participants in a group effort to “get Trump.” The multiple indictments and the massive $475 million fine (because his loan application somehow misled someone, even though the lending bank testified that it hadn’t been misled) weren’t enough. We had to add a sexual assault lawsuit based on an event so old it was barred by the tuite of limitations.
The carrol lawsuit was filed years after the staute of limitations had run. Reincarnated by an obliging legislative waiver of the statute of limitations. Funded by a billionaire’s desire to get Trump. I don’t like mobs. I’m waiting to see how this develops.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 5/28/2026 @ 4:27 pm@21
Anyone who finds her claims “credible” is really just a partisan hack and cries of “abuse of powers by the Trump DOJ” is simply just laughable.
whembly (4958ea) — 5/28/2026 @ 6:44 pmThe compelling evidence to me was the testimony that she’d told a friend about the incident long before filing the lawsuit. YMMV.
Time123 (537c85) — 5/28/2026 @ 7:20 pmI’d also add that her accusation was entirely in line with Trumps character and public statements. So it isn’t that hard to believe.
Time123 (5ac22a) — 5/28/2026 @ 7:55 pm34, she actually told 2 people, one a reporter or news person, and both testified for her at the trial. Difficult evidence to ignore in the absence of some real bias testimony. Or something.
Compared to the ditzy “professor” Ford, who claimed to have been at Kavanaugh gang rape parties, in a Georgetown house the address for which she didn’t remember, with people who denied what she claimed, Carrol was a star plaintiff. The good professor Ford only “remembered” the 80’s “incident” in 2012 in therapy.
It says a lot about the electorate’s irritation with the democrat party in general and their candidates in particular that Trump won.
If Democrats had been more fair and selective in their attacks, the Carrol case, deployed late, might have been way more damaging.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (615329) — 5/28/2026 @ 8:11 pm@12 Not this lefty and you are confusing the democrat party establishment and their corporate donors with the left. My handle asset comes from hillary clinton and her stooges calling Tulsi Gabbard a russian asset. Harry Reid and the trump NY prosecutors are the democrat establishment not leftys! When we leftys take over the democrat party you will know the difference and so will the donors and running dogs and stooges in elected office!
asset (10dd61) — 5/28/2026 @ 9:59 pm@whembly@10 Probably someone should go back in time and tell that to Newt Gingrich.
nic (120c94) — 5/28/2026 @ 11:12 pm@36, good point. The jury’s conclusion that Trump sexually assaulted her was reasonable. Trump is trying to harm a victim of his sexual predation and his supporters are cheering him on.
Time123 (05cdb5) — 5/28/2026 @ 11:20 pmDon’t get angry get even!
asset (10dd61) — 5/29/2026 @ 3:07 am@39
Trump’s opponents for 10 years have tried to illegally prevent him from being elected, then throw him out of office, then bankrupt his family, then throw him in jail, then prevent him from running again, and then prevent him from being elected again. And he’s supposed to just wave off all of that simply because they failed?
This isn’t me trying to “defend” Trump. Trump and his family will be fine even after all this. My jaw-jaw’ing here is to point out these bad behaviors by Trump’s opponents because most of you here are simply not interested in it.
You all keep using that word “retribution”.
Think about what you’re saying. Let’s define it:
You say retribution like it’s a bad thing.
Yet, I’ve not seen ONE rationale why it would a be a bad thing, beside it’s the “Orange Julius”.
Badk to Carroll…the case against President Trump is one of the most lopsided, partisan civil cases in American history.
My issues with this is: Carroll could not identify WHEN the alleged incident occurred — not even the YEAR with any precision.
That should have killed the case as dead as a skunk on the road right there. Normally, these are killed immediately, with prejudice.
Without a temporal anchor, no defendant — regardless of guilt or innocence — can mount an alibi defense. Trump, who has maintained detailed calendars and staff records for decades, was denied the most basic tool of self-defense: the ability to establish where he was.
Look no further than Kavanuagh ‘Boof Calendar’!
That is not a technicality. I believe it is a due process violation at the constitutional level, a pretty foundational OBVIOUS one that the NY legislature/courts willingly trampled on.
Then Carroll produced the one piece of physical evidence she claimed corroborated her account — the dress she wore during the alleged incident. It was subsequently established that the dress was designed AFTER the incident could have occurred.
Lemme repeat, the sole corroborating evidence falsified her timeline.
The case proceeded anyway.
Another odd thing is simply this: Her story requires Trump to physically walk into a clothing store to do some shopping. He was already a billionaire at the time. I have a hard time picturing him doing that. I’m far from a billionaire and haven’t had to buy clothes since…man, I can’t even remember the last time I shopped for myself. At Trump’s level, he probably has an assistant do it, or has tailors come to his office.
In any case, the resulting verdict was then weaponized into that defamation suit — where Trump was held liable for denying the allegation, while being procedurally barred from defending against it, because it was already “proven” in another court, regardless how flawed the procedure was. (Yet Stephanopoulos and ABC settled the defamation lawsuit with Trump in December 2024… make it make sense!)
He was punished, in effect, for asserting his own innocence.
Compounding everything: coordinated professional and physical threats so thoroughly intimidated the legal community that attorneys refused these cases regardless of available fees.
When you systematically destroy a defendant’s ability to retain counsel of choice, you forfeit the right to a legitimate verdict.
An allegation is not evidence.
Process without substance is not law.
Undermining process that is due to all defendant, is unconstitutional.
Any verdict produced under these conditions carries no legitimate authority — whatever its formal status. It’s exactly the old legal metaphor of the ‘Fruit of the Poisoned Tree’. The whole case is tainted.
Not only is it the right move to investigate Carroll and her benefactor, but every other person involved as well.
You don’t like Trump “going after his opponents”? Maybe your instincts is partly right – what he’s doing is ‘retribution’. No one can deny that his opponents:
What you may wrestle with is whether or not such retribution is justified.
My retort to that, is how else do you stop this cycle of retribution? The only way is to levy a moral reckoning, ensuring that your opponent thinks again in considering any future government abuse agaisnt you.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/29/2026 @ 7:00 am39, The aim appears to be at Hoffman’s NGO, not her.
But aside from that, yes the jury’s conclusion was reasonable enough–IF you ignore that Trump was deprived of the proof and protection NY law provides to everyone else.
The NY Legislature established statutes of limitation for civil claims decades ago. Because allowing claims to be filed many years after the fact is prejudicial to any defendant/accused.
Memories fade, witnesses are not able to be identified, documents are lost, or misplaced, records of where one was and what time are lost. People should not have to defend aginst “stale” claims. That an established legislative reason for a staute of limitations in all 50 states.
Who can fairly be expected to establish where they were and at what time on a day plucked from over 30 years before?
Who can locate the customers in the same room that day to determine what they saw?
But that is what NY chose to allow–setting aside the normal 3 year staute of limitations so that women could sue people based on claims never filed in the past, and that were often decades old.
If someone accused me of asaulting them in a Bergdorf dressing room 30 years ago, how on earth would I defend that?
Its not like a Nazi prison camp guard with a SS tatoo that 10 people remember. Its some guy accused of an assault decades before.
Its not beyond the pale that she concocted the event, but told people about it as if it were true. Or that the people she told hated Trump so much they lied about it (hard as it may be to belive that anyone hates him). But the point is that no one should be called to defend an accusation from decades in the past. Whenbly’s points are good ones too.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 5/29/2026 @ 9:06 am@41 I understand your point of view.
Time123 (0dd36b) — 5/29/2026 @ 10:37 amStates also extended the statute of limitations (or abolished them altogether) to allow survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, for example California. What NY did was no different than that, and as I pointed out above nearly 3,000 other lawsuits were filed under the Adult Survivors Act.
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 11:46 am@44
It’s called Plausible Deniability Rip…
The law’s timing and structure were engineered with Trump in mind — specifically to enable Carroll’s civil rape lawsuit,and would have been dead on arrival without such a window. The legislators knew exactly what claim would be filed, by whom, and against whom, and crafted the law to make it possible while dressing it up as victim advocacy.
You seem to ignore the history, particularly post-J6, the hysteria surrounding all things Trump during the Biden/Harris era. There were palpable vindictiveness to “get Trump” at this time, as we’ve seen from the Smith/James/Bragg cases.
The Act may genuinely helped thousands of survivors in NY and I believe it was ALSO mainly motivated by a desire to expose Trump to civil liability in the runup of the election. The timing is too perfect to ignore.
Plausible deniability doesn’t require innocence of some conspiracy — it just requires that the cover story be true enough that it can’t be cleanly disproven or legally invalidated.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:26 pmWhatever.
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:29 pmIf what you say is true then the DOJ should be investigating the NY legislature.
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:30 pm@46
Scintillating response.
Bravo!
whembly (556ac4) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:31 pmIt’s all water under the bridge.
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:31 pmThere’s no convincing a conspiracy theorist.
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:33 pm@47
They might still, but there are current ongoing appeals. I’m sure there are advocates whom are advising to let the appeal system work first.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:33 pm@50
How many time have you been burned whenever you exclaim some position is a ‘conspiracy’ theory, only to be true at some point in the future?
…I lost count.
whembly (556ac4) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:35 pmWhat would the appeals process have to do with investigating the NY legislature? They aren’t a party in the litigation.
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:36 pmFacts not in evidence.
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:37 pmZero. It’s easy to count to zero.
Time123 (0dd36b) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:41 pmMud, the burden is on the plaintiffs. You wouldn’t need to prove you didn’t do it.
Time123 (0dd36b) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:42 pmFar fewer than your assertions without facts to back them up-for example, your claims of President Biden’s personal corruption.
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 12:46 pmI sometimes think that innumeracy is an even bigger problem than illiteracy
Jim Miller (6abdc0) — 5/29/2026 @ 1:02 pmHarcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 5/29/2026 @ 9:06 am
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/29/2026 @ 1:35 pmPure speculation.
Even pedophile priests or the organization that employed them?
Rip Murdock (8e56f0) — 5/29/2026 @ 3:03 pm44, rip- there was also a pattern of evidence suppression, moving perpetrators out of the area, and very young people afflicted, none of which applied to Carrol’s case.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (67b8b3) — 5/29/2026 @ 7:50 pm60, no more speculative than Carrol trying to fix the year of the event (1995 or 19996), and far more realistic given that she didn’t sue him at the time. As for your view that catholic priest abuse is a parallel, its not: see 61.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (67b8b3) — 5/29/2026 @ 7:53 pm59, he’s done himself more damage by his tendency to flame on when he could just be silent. But the NYT tried to pin him as a lecher with a story about a young woman who showed up at a pool party, but she made a pint of rejecting that, and saying that he was a gentleman.
Given that he had a girlfriend all the time and was acutely conscious of publicity, it just strikes me as unreal that he would have done that in a Bergdorf store instead of inviting her back to his lair.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (67b8b3) — 5/29/2026 @ 7:58 pmDid Dave move abroad?
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (67b8b3) — 5/29/2026 @ 7:59 pmNo.
Dave (70c652) — 5/29/2026 @ 9:11 pmok, good.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 5/30/2026 @ 1:16 pmHi Dave
Time123 (84b5dd) — 5/30/2026 @ 4:54 pmRetribution? One must first believe the accusations and extraordinary twisting of circumstances and he-said she said testimony to believe this whole affair was just to begin with. That level of belief is troubling to say the least.
Charlie (591c31) — 6/6/2026 @ 5:18 pm