The Reasons Why E. Jean Carroll Will Beat Trump - #SistersInLaw Podcast

Añadido: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]Donald Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll by calling her a liar and saying she made up all this stuff about sexual abuse. Um who paid her legal fees is completely irrelevant to that issue. That's why the judge excluded evidence of it at trial.

[00:00:13]That's why it was affirmed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. That's why it will fail to meet the materiality statement. So, I don't see any legitimate prosecutor taking this case.

[00:00:23]I don't see any grand jury indicting it.

[00:00:25]And I certainly don't see any jury convicting uh beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:00:31]>> Welcome to #sisters-in-law.

[00:00:34]To keep up with the show, click here, >> [music] >> subscribe, and don't forget to like and hit the bell to get notified.

[00:00:42]So, we start today with my friend E.

[00:00:44]Jean Carroll. I always like to disclose when we talk about her and her various legal cases that we're friends so that you're under no impression that I'm unbiased about this delightful woman. Um E. Jean Carroll, new reporting this week suggests that she is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department. And my reaction when I first saw that was to think is it a crime now to successfully sue the president of the United States or the ex-president as one might have it for defamation? Because I couldn't figure out what crime sweet E. Jean Carroll could have committed. So, Kim, what was the first level of reporting about that? I mean, it's been a confusing week, but let's start with what we first heard.

[00:01:31]>> Yeah, it was really um gobsmacking. I know I use that word a lot, but um just the idea that someone who uh uh jury has uh determined was sexually abused by someone and then being the subject of a criminal investigation themselves is um blaming the victim in a way that uh I I just found really repugnant. But uh as you said, CNN reported that the Justice Department had opened a criminal investigation into E.

[00:02:03]Jean Carroll. As you know, she is a former columnist. I used to read her uh religiously. Uh I was always a very big fan. Um and multiple sources told CNN reporters that the investigation was focused on whether she committed perjury tied to her two civil cases against Donald Trump. Again, the idea Um and we've talked a lot about weaponization before. That's what hit That's what this hit me as um Donald Trump basically turning, you know, I asked the question, is Donald Trump turning uh his Justice Department against people he dislikes?

[00:02:40]Cuz this isn't even about like political enemies or perceived political Just somebody who he doesn't like and he has a problem with personally. Um and it looked very much like the Justice Department was being weaponized to to to help him out there.

[00:02:56]>> Yeah, I I think that's absolutely the case. There was some reporting about the specifics and it came down to a question about how she was paying for the defamation cases. And she responded that her lawyer had taken them on a contingency basis. She paid nothing up front, but the lawyer would get a certain percentage of of any recovery.

[00:03:17]A- And then it turns out her lawyer tells her, I think in 2022, but don't hold me to the year, that some that a you know, a sort of a a donor had come from outside and was covering some of the lawyers' expenses.

[00:03:31]When you file a lawsuit, you have to pay a filing fee and stuff like that. So, it doesn't alter her arrangement with her lawyer, but there is this source of funding. The lawyers say it gets mentioned to her once in passing. She's asked about it a couple years later in a deposition. And she forgets about it.

[00:03:49]So, that's supposedly the source of the perjury. But then, Barb, something really interesting happens. The US attorney in Chicago walks back or tries to walk back that recording. Can you explain his statement and and what you made of it? Did you end up thinking that there was an investigation into Carroll or isn't there?

[00:04:10]And also, um something I just have to ask is did you think it was odd that it was the US attorney in Chicago who popped up when she testified in Manhattan for her deposition?

[00:04:21]>> Yes. In In fact, I think there's a real tell here. So, um you have a nice piece on this in your Civil Discourse newsletter that gets into all the nitty-gritty, including one of the things I love, Joyce, about your newsletter is you often include screenshots of legal documents, and you also included a screenshot of the social media post from the US Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. So, Andrew Boutrous, who's the US attorney there, said, "In light of the widespread reporting and intense media and public interest into the E.

[00:04:53]Jean Carroll matter in New York, the Chicago US Attorney's Office can confirm that it has not opened and has never opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. Any claim to the contrary is categorically false." So, one of the things all all of us have been trained to look at when there's a statement that's false, remember that if any one part of it is false, the whole thing is false. So, when you talk to your friend and there's half of it's accurate and half of it's not accurate, you say, "Well, that's partly true. Let me correct you and, you know, send you on the right way."

[00:05:31]When when people are issuing public statements or testifying, sometimes they're very careful to say something that is literally true, but if you throw enough qualifiers in there, um you can make it literally true without really revealing um um, going on. So, I thought a couple things were interesting here.

[00:05:48]Um, one is the idea that the Chicago US Attorney's office has not opened a case.

[00:05:55]Well, okay. I don't think the initial reporting was that it was Chicago. It was just the DOJ had. Okay, so maybe some other part of the Justice Department. I mean, this deposition occurred in New York. Maybe the New York US Attorney's office or maybe DOJ in Washington has. So, the word Chicago in there is doing a lot of work. It also says it has not opened nor or ever a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. That doesn't mean they aren't investigating her as part of a larger investigation. And as you note in your piece, Joyce, that later in the day it was reported that Chicago, um, where um, Reid Hoffman's nonprofit is located, who who paid for the these legal expenses for E. Jean Carroll, is based in Chi- Chicago. And so, if you read between the lines, it seems quite likely that the Chicago US Attorney's office maybe interviewing Reid Hoffman or his, um, his nonprofit. And that maybe as part of this, uh, E. Jean Carroll is being, you know, swept up in it as a minor player.

[00:07:02]Maybe they try to charge her, try to flip her to get to use her against Reid Hoffman. So, I just think we should all be aware of that statement that each piece of that is doing some work there, um, making it, uh, sort of a non-denial denial.

[00:07:18]>> Yeah, I think that's really true here.

[00:07:20]And Jill, that's a new name that cropped up yesterday in this context, Reid Hoffman. The reporting suggests that he might be the subject of the investigation. And of course, as we know, when DOJ opens a case, usually it it might be like United States versus Carroll or United States versus Hoffman.

[00:07:39]And so, it's a a trick for claiming you have not opened an investigation into E.

[00:07:44]Jean Carroll if your case is subbed as US versus Hoffman. Um, so so tell us about Reid Hoffman. He's got some ties to Chicago as as do you. Um, who is he?

[00:07:56]>> So, actually the only thing you need to know about Reid Hoffman as it pertains to this particular uh, item is that he is connected to E. Jean Carroll and that he has donated to a lot of Democrats uh, candidates and Democratic uh, causes I would say. Um, he is a billionaire. He is the uh, one of the founders of PayPal and the founder of LinkedIn. Uh, so a very successful entrepreneur and venture capitalist. Um, he has no links to Chicago except for one that I know of.

[00:08:34]He is a Californian, lives there, his companies are there, but he has a not-for-profit here in Chicago. And it was through that not-for-profit that he supported the E.

[00:08:45]Jean Carroll case by giving uh, money for expenses to Robbie Kaplan, E. Jean Carroll's lawyer.

[00:08:53]And so, that's what has led to his being a target. I would say, I'm guessing at this, but seems to me that anybody who funded a case that was successful to the tune of combined almost 88 million dollars in damages owed by Donald Trump.

[00:09:12]Um, and by the way, the only way Robbie Kaplan will get her percentage is after he actually pays the damages, which he's doing his very best to avoid. Um, so, he's he is a person in his own right, quite successful, but as I say, the only reason uh, it's a question of you know, was he investigated because he funded uh, E. Jean Carroll or is E. Jean Carroll subsumed in an investigation into him for other reasons but just because he funded her. So, that's who he is and it's his not-for-profit in Chicago that gave venue in Chicago.

[00:09:50]>> So, Kim, can we drill down on that a little bit? You're the civil lawyer in the room. Um first off, you know, is there anything wrong with providing financial support for someone who's conducting a civil lawsuit? And what else do you think could have led to Hoffman becoming the subject of a possible criminal investigation?

[00:10:09]>> Yeah, no, it is not. Uh there is nothing wrong with uh funding uh helping someone pay for a criminal lawsuit. I would add one thing to this um desire like why to the question about why Trump might be going uh after him is that one tactic that Donald Trump has always used both in business and there's no reason for him to change now is to try to as to your point, Joyce, delay and throw obstacles in litigation or flood people with litigation to the point that they are you know, filing a lawsuit is really expensive and it's hard and you sort of grind them down and they back down just because they have run out of money or resources or time or just you know, they're exhausted of it and they would ultimately back down. So, I would imagine that Trump wouldn't love it that there is a billionaire that is backing E. Jean Carroll and that will thwart that very um attempt to just keep appealing and appealing and appealing uh this case. He's appealed this um one of the verdicts all the way up to the US Supreme Court which weirdly and this is a little bit of a tangent, but they keep relisting it before deciding whether they take it up or not which actually worries me a bit because usually I thought that this was ridiculous. I mean, there's no reason for that award to be disturbed uh that was given by a jury. Um but usually that would take one conference at the Supreme Court to say yeah, no, and kick that aside. It's been relisted 12 times.

[00:11:37]>> Yeah, I mean, I was actually >> know what that's about.

[00:11:41]>> Do you think that's a sign that they might take it on appeal, or do you think that they're they just have bigger fish to fry first?

[00:11:47]>> Well, if they had bigger fish to fry, they would have denied it already.

[00:11:51]>> Yeah.

[00:11:51]>> It doesn't mean for sure.

[00:11:53]>> until the long conference at the end of the term?

[00:11:57]>> Maybe, but I don't Yeah, I don't know what I don't And I don't want to read it. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will take it up. It's just weird.

[00:12:03]It's So, just put a pin in that. It's weird.

[00:12:05]>> going to say, we'll put a pin in that.

[00:12:06]We promise y'all our our dear listeners that we will come back and and close the loop on this.

[00:12:12]>> Yes, but no, there's nothing wrong with funding uh civil litigation. And I agree with everybody else. I think he's going after him cuz he doesn't like him. He thinks he's a liberal. He's helping somebody uh E. Jean Carroll, someone who Trump clearly has a problem with. And it's also interesting, too, like you're talking about deep-pocketed people funding litigation. Remember that Hulk Hogan civil lawsuit, the defamation lawsuit that closed down the website Gawker because he claimed that they invaded his privacy? Well, that was funded by Peter Thiel, which is one of Trump's biggest backers. And no I didn't see the DOJ investigating him in that case. And that was aimed at silencing journalists. So, yeah, there's a lot going on with this case, and none of it's good.

[00:12:52]>> That's a really great example. I had not thought about that until you just raised it. Um Barb, let's just pretend for a moment Carroll's a subsidiary target of the investigation, and let's just leave aside concerns that she couldn't be charged in Chicago.

[00:13:09]Would there be good substantive reasons to investigate her conduct based on what we know about these perjury allegations?

[00:13:16]I mean, you're the US attorney who's asked to open this investigation. Would you do it and take a look?

[00:13:23]>> Wait, not not not in a minute.

[00:13:27]You're you're in a million years. I I can imagine a case, you know, someone presenting this to you and you'd have to say, "First, this occurred in 2022 in a deposition in a civil case. I can't remember a single time we ever brought criminal charges against a witness at a civil deposition ever." Um it aside from those you know, venue issues that you raise.

[00:13:51]But, I think the what what is really significant to me is this chronology. So, she's asked this question, um "Are you personally responsible for paying your legal fees?"

[00:14:02]Uh answer, "No, I'm they're get I'm my my lawyers will get paid on a contingency basis, which means if you win, they get a portion of it." Before the trial begins, her lawyers disclosed to the court that in fact that wasn't quite right, that in addition to the contingency fee, Reed Hoffman and his I guess it was actually his his nonprofit >> Yeah.

[00:14:26]>> was going to cover some of the costs.

[00:14:28]There's a difference between fees and costs. The judge considered this and said, "This is completely irrelevant to this case. I am not going to let you bring this up in the trial because it will be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. The jury will be confused.

[00:14:44]No, it's not coming in." So, then this issue got raised on appeal after she won her verdict, it went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And one of the things the court there said is the court was right to exclude all of this because even though her case was indeed taken on a contingency fee basis, there is I'm quoting from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, "No evidence to suggest that Ms. Carroll was personally involved in securing the funding, interacted with the funder, received an invoice showing the arrangement before or after her counsel received the outside funding, or had discussed the arrangement with anyone between learning of it in September of 2020 and being deposed in September in October 2022. Therefore, none of this is relevant or important.

[00:15:29]The reason that matters so much is that to bring a case of false statements, it's it's very difficult because you must prove what was in someone's mind at the time that they then and there knew they were making a false statement. So, in light of the difference between fees and costs, anyone else paying your legal fees, it's actually literally true what she said, "No." Um but the costs were talked about earlier. Um it's not a literally false statement.

[00:15:55]This is what witnesses are trained to do in testifying. Um they didn't ask her about costs. And so costs were something different. So, it is number one, I don't think they're going to be able to prove that this was a false statement. But the other thing about this is you have to prove that the matter was material to the question under consideration. That means that it was important or dispositive or would have made a difference in the case. This was a case about defamation. That Donald Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll by calling her a liar and saying she made up all the stuff about sexual abuse. Um who paid her legal fees is completely irrelevant to that issue. That's why the judge excluded evidence of it at trial.

[00:16:35]That's why it was affirmed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. That's why it will fail to meet the materiality statement. So, I don't see any legitimate prosecutor taking this case.

[00:16:45]I don't see any grand jury indicting it.

[00:16:47]And I certainly don't see any jury convicting uh beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:16:52]>> Yeah, I I agree with you 100% on that. I mean, usually if you I mean, leaving aside the the really great analysis you offered earlier about, you know, DOJ just doesn't really investigate perjury in civil depositions that don't have any connection to important national interests, but leaving all of that aside, here it's just clear from the outside that a court of appeals has in essence said, "Even if she made a false statement, it wasn't material. There was no intent." I mean, this is just riddled with problems. So, Jill, let's just take into account the unlikely event that there's an indictment of Carroll that suddenly shows up. What kind of motions would you expect the defense to file?

[00:17:34]And do you think that they would be successful in getting the case dismissed if it was indicted?

[00:17:40]>> Yes, I expect them to be successful. I just I have to mention one of my favorite cases before I answer your question in full, which is Bronston.

[00:17:48]I'm sure you all know what that is, which is basically to Barbara's point, when something is misleading but literally true, it is not perjury.

[00:17:57]So, even if she misled and and remember, they notified the court. So, it was corrected before this could have had any impact. So, there's no way that this is perjury. So, let's, you know, let's just acknowledge that. Um but I would expect successful, selective, and vindictive prosecution motions to be made, for sure. And while those are all hard to succeed on, I think that this is one of those cases where it would be successful. So, in addition to it not being perjury, it's selective, it's vindictive. Um I I also think that it will be uh there'll be a motion for change of venue because why is it in Chicago? Uh there's no reason it and it's not linked to whether or not um the investigation of Reid Hoffman has anything to do with this at all. It doesn't. Uh he's being investigated apparently for allegations of money laundering and of possible obstruction of justice. So, there's no reason why venue should lie in Chicago. And as we will discuss later in the show, the US Attorney's Office in Chicago is in plenty of big trouble for misconduct already. So, I don't think they want to take this on.

[00:19:13]>> Well, maybe Trump can convince his party in Congress to pass him a statute that makes it a crime to successfully sue him for defamation, but until that happens, I think we're all agreed. This is just another part of the revenge tour that DOJ is undertaking on Trump's behalf, and it's I I think it just underscores what an utterly insane place we're in.

[00:19:37]As Kim would say, I'm gobsmacked by the >> [music] [music]