Trump-Carroll Legal Battle Takes Dramatic Turn as Criminal Probe Into E. Jean Carroll Surface | N18G

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Eeene Carol, the former magazine columnist who accused President Trump of sexual assault. The department is examining whether she committed perjury regarding outside funding for her legal fight. Separate juries awarded Carol more than $88 million. They found the president liable for sexually abusing her in a New York department store in the mid1 1990s and defaming her in 2019 when he repeatedly denied the assault. The president is appealing pursuing appeals in both cases. With us now, CNN political commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin. She was the communications director for the Trump White House. Eugene Carol won these cases against the president. The jury found him liable for sexual abuse.

[00:00:41]Now she is being investigated herself.

[00:00:44]What message does that send?

[00:00:46]>> Well, first and foremost, from a PR perspective, because that's my background, I will never understand why this administration wants to put some of the worst associations of the presidents back in the headlines. Most of us have kind of forgotten about the Eugene Carol suit. the allegations which she was he was ultimately found liable for and now it puts it front and center. It's very similar to the January 6 cases. DOJ wants to keep rehashing them, but then Republicans also say, "Oh, Democrats keep talking about January 6." No, this president keeps talking about the election lies January 6. So, from purely a standpoint of wanting to focus on his domestic agenda and move forward, this makes zero sense. That was so interesting because that was my follow-up question here, which is what do they get out of putting this out there months before a midterm?

[00:01:28]>> Absolutely nothing. It's not a headline that they want. And we've seen a number of these cases go forward, James Comey and others where they overreach. DOJ was not able to get the outcome that they wanted. And I suspect this will be a similar case. I I'm not not from a legal perspective, but based on what we know, this is should be the last thing Donald Trump wants to talk about in the twilight of his presidency. he should be focusing on the economy, gas prices, the war in Iran, not relitigating this.

[00:01:53]>> You know, people either who worked for the White House or who were connected with them who then split. And I'm just wondering how much fear there is out there among people who do have a rift with the administration about being investigated.

[00:02:06]>> I don't know if I'd frame it as fear, but sort of an acceptance that folks are going to be investigated. I think of Chris Krebs, of Miles Taylor, other critics of the president who are already going through those those legal proceedings now. And I think folks knew to lawyer up and be ready because this is a president who was very clear that he was going to be doing a bit of a revenge tour. I would just hope that advisers around the president. I know this is something Susie Wilds pushed.

[00:02:29]This is not what you won on. You may have talked about it on the campaign trail, but it's not why people entrusted you with the American presidency. Focus on actually delivering for the American people. Joining us right now is CNN's senior legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Ellie Honig. Thanks for coming in, Ellie. I really appreciate it. So, as John was just saying, this is uh now an investigation into Egene Carol, questions about perjury and is gets to the 2022 deposition um that Carol gave. What does the Justice Department need to show or prove? And how serious of a case is this?

[00:03:03]>> So, perjury cases are serious. They're punishable by maximum 5 years in prison.

[00:03:07]But they're much harder for prosecutors to prove than I think people might realize. So what prosecutors will have to show here to have an indictment against Eugene Carol is that a she gave false testimony about whether she knew where this funding was coming from. B that the way she was asked the question was unambiguous. There's no wiggle room.

[00:03:24]There's no confusion about what the question was or what the answer was. C that she knew it was false at that time in 2022 at the deposition. And then D, the prosecutors will have to show what we call materiality, meaning was the thing she allegedly lied about relevant to some substantial issue in the case.

[00:03:43]It's not enough if it was just some detail or some throwaway. So those are the things prosecutors have to show. And of course, Kate, beyond a reasonable doubt when it gets to a jury, if and when it gets to >> the materiality, I think I think is one of the questions that people will have is this isn't um it's and I don't want to say quibble like it's not serious, but it's not a question about uh her telling the truth regarding a key element of what she has accused the president of. No, this is about just funding for her legal fees. Why does that matter?

[00:04:11]>> Right. It has nothing to do with the alleged sexual assault inside the department store. But I think the argument prosecutors will make on materiality is the defense argument, Donald Trump's defense at that civil case was in part that Egene Carol had fabricated this story about what happened in the department store to take him down politically and the argument would be if she was indeed being funded by Democratic mega donors that would be relevant to her motive. So that'll be the argument. I actually do think if they can prove she knowingly lied, I do think they will be able to satisfy materiality. The bar by the way for materiality is very low. You just have to show that it was relevant to some fact in the case.

[00:04:48]>> But and another aspect of this is just if you add into um the in the context of this pattern of retribution that we have seen from the justice department from President Trump especially of recent how does that add into this?

[00:05:00]>> So this is very relevant legally and this could overcome the entire case. If there comes a day where Eugene Carol gets charged she will have a very strong vindictive prosecution defense. The textbook definition of vindictive prosecution is somebody asserts their rights, let's say by a lawsuit and wins and then gets punished with a prosecution in return. And so she will have a very strong case. And this of course is not happening in a vacuum case. We've seen politically targeted prosecutions that have failed against Leticia James, against Jim Comey, against Mark Kelly, against Alyssa Slacken, an investigation of Jerome Powell on down the line. So she'll have a powerful defense to be made, but she can't do it now. She can only do it if and when there comes a day where she gets indicted.

[00:05:42]>> Joining me now is someone who was targeted, who has been targeted by the administration, and he knows firsthand what that's like. National Security Attorney Mark Zade represents several Trump critics who has been singled out by this administration. Mark, I want to begin. First of all, look, set the stage here. How is it possible that a civil lawsuit that does not involve federal prosecutors would now be investigated for perjury as if you lied to the government? This is very rare. I haven't heard of this before.

[00:06:11]>> It is incredibly rare. But everyone who sits in a deposition, civil depositions, I've taken God knows how many dozens, hundreds of them, >> there's an oath that is administered at the beginning, and it is the same type of oath that if you testified in court, whether a civil case or a criminal case, but it is incredibly rare that someone would be prosecuted by the federal government for lying in a deposition.

[00:06:34]There are examples. We Hey, we talking about some sexreated cases here. Bill Clinton back in the 1990s with Monica Lewinsky. The independent council investigated him, I'm sorry, with Paula Jones investigated him as to whether or not he had lied under oath. And now that was the independent council, federal government against federal government, but it was from a civil deposition. And at that time, people were asking the same type of questions. When is the last time this ever happened? I've been practicing 35 years almost. I've never seen this happen, but they came up with a handful cases here, handful there.

[00:07:10]Usually when someone's paid to lie or there's a systemic threat to the justice system, not like this type of case that just reeks of retribution given who the players are.

[00:07:22]>> Let's talk about the idea of of payment that has come up in this particular matter. I mean, it was Reed Hoffman who we mentioned is somebody who helped to pay legal expenses. And here's what he said when he addressed this issue in the past.

[00:07:38]>> It is a standard practice that happens a lot where there's outside funding of lawsuits. They uh we didn't encourage the lawsuit to happen. We only got on board after she'd already filed it and was down the road.

[00:07:50]>> Now, why that's important is based on what you just said. The idea of somebody being paid to lie, it appears that might be the connection they're trying to look at here. It's unclear. But does the fact that he funded the suit after it was already in the universe going to impact how they see this case?

[00:08:06]>> No, I don't I don't think so. And paid to lie would be literally someone was paid to lie in the case as for example an expert witness. In this case, what she knows when she know knew it is going to be key. Did she know that there was funding coming in? At what level?

[00:08:24]Did she know all the details? As a lawyer, we do crowdfunding at times to raise cases, especially when I want to represent people pro bono against the US government. I don't want them to pay a dime for having been fired by this administration. So, we do some crowdsourcing. I don't necessarily give all the details to the clients that they would know.

[00:08:43]>> And that's important because if it's a perjury investigation, she you have to prove that she knew what her statement at the time she made it was false.

[00:08:50]>> Yeah. And usually the remedy would be you take it to the court and you tell the judge and maybe that testimony would be thrown out or there'd be some other type of penalty. Bill Clinton got fined and he had to give up his law license for a period of time or whenever it This video