BREAKING: DOJ Launches Criminal Probe Into E Jean Carroll Over Trump Lawsuit Testimony | LIVE | N18G

Añadido: 2026-05-29

[00:00:00]accused President Trump of sexual assault. Separate juries awarded Carol more than $88 million, finding the president liable for sexually abusing her in her New York department store in the mid1 1990s and then defaming her in 2019 when he denied the assault repeatedly. Now, we are told the Justice Department is looking into whether Carol committed perjury when she testified that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. It was later revealed that billionaire Reed Hoffman's nonprofit had paid some legal fees and expenses.

[00:00:28]Joining us now, CNN political analyst Keno Youngs of the New York Times and Ron Brownstein with Bloomberg.

[00:00:32]Gentlemen, it's great to see you. We talked about the legal implications surrounding this. Owen, I just want to start a little bit on the politics here with noting that all these lawsuits, investigations, what some people call a retribution campaign, it's not the economy, which is what voters say they are most concerned about. So, when something like this pops up, how much does the White House think it helps?

[00:00:59]Well, for one, I think it's just worth emphasizing again that this is incredibly unusual. It's not activity you would usually see out of a Justice Department that, you know, has long been known as had a norm of being independent of the White House. And it does affirm concerns, including from some Justice Department officials themselves, of the president's control over this agency as well. This is and does would appear to be the retribution tour just kicked into another level here. Now for the politics as you said. I mean I can recall when chief of staff Susie Wilds was quoted I believe in the Vandy Fair piece saying that the retribution tour would be temporary and that there would then be a shift to uh traveling the country and focusing more of the White House's messaging on the kitchen table issues that were the concern of Americans throughout the country. We have seen that there's rising economic anxiety and frustration particularly as the war in Iran has gone on. The White House has continued to say that they're going to go out and talk about the domestic agenda and reach voters where they are.

[00:02:08]This doesn't align with that. Right? You can group these actions with the retribution tour with also President Trump's comments of disregarding the finances of Americans when it comes to negotiations with Iran. saying yesterday that he also doesn't really care about the midterms as well, saying that in the context of Iran cannot wait him out. All of these comments point to really a fissure between the priorities of President Trump and the priorities of the overall Republican party that is trying to address the concerns of their voters as they look forward to November.

[00:02:45]Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Eugene 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.

[00:03:26]Now she is being investigated herself.

[00:03:29]What message does that send?

[00:03:31]>> 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 what 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 a out of putting this out there months before a midterm?

[00:04:14]>> 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.

[00:04:38]>> 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.

[00:04:51]>> 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.

[00:05:14]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. So, >> good evening from the newsroom. We begin tonight with breaking news. Exclusive CNN reporting that the Justice Department is now investigating former magazine columnist Eugene Carol. Now, just three years ago, Manhattan civil jury found that then citizen Donald Trump sexually abused her in a department store dressing room in the mid 1990s. They awarded Carol $5 million for the sexual abuse and defamation and later $83 million in a separate but related defamation case. The president denies the allegations and has a long history of talking about Miss Carol.

[00:05:58]>> I met a woman in front of Burgdorf Goodman. Took her up to a changing booth right outside where the cash register is. This is New York.

[00:06:08]Why didn't you scream? Uh, I was in trauma. I don't even know who this woman is. I have no idea who this woman is. I have no idea who she is, where she came from. I know nothing about this nut job.

[00:06:24]>> This is a person I have no idea until this happened. Obviously, I have no idea who she was >> and nor could I care less.

[00:06:32]>> She said that I did something to her that never took place.

[00:06:38]>> It is a totally false accusation.

[00:06:41]>> They said he didn't rape her and I didn't do anything else either. You know what? Cuz I have no idea who the hell she is.

[00:06:47]>> Mr. President, >> I don't know who this woman is. This is a woman who's also accused other men of things.

[00:06:51]>> I said, "While it's politically incorrect, she's not my type." And that's 100% true. She's not my type.

[00:06:59]>> Now, some of those comments became evidence in the second defamation case, one of two she won against the president. And now, CNN is learning that the Justice Department is investigating whether she committed perjury in connection with those lawsuits. CNN's Paula Reid shares the reporting on this and joins us now. All right. So, Paula, what is the basis for this investigation as you understand it?

[00:07:20]>> Well, Anderson, this is clearly the latest move in the Justice Department's efforts to target President Trump's longstanding adversaries. I'm told that this investigation focuses specifically on a 2022 deposition where Carol said she had not received any outside funding, but her lawyers later informed the judge overseeing this case that she had received funding from billionaire Reed Hoffman for fees and expenses. I want to note when her trial began, the judge said he saw no credibility issues and blocked Trump lawyers from asking about funding. Now, Carol is 82 and she is currently embroiled in multiple ongoing legal battles uh with President Trump. Juries have awarded her millions of dollars in damages, but President Trump is appealing those judgments. His appeal of a $5 million judgment in a sexual abuse case has been pending before the Supreme Court for quite some time. They have now 12 times Anderson deferred on deciding whether they're going to take that case up. Tonight, Carol's legal team declined to comment for the story.

[00:08:24]>> And is the acting attorney general uh Todd Blanch involved in this investigation?

[00:08:30]>> So, we're told that Blanch has recused in this case because of his work on one of the appeals for Trump. Now, we are told that this case is being handled out of the US attorney's office in Chicago.

[00:08:43]Now, the nexus to Chicago, uh, we are told is that Reed Hoffman's nonprofit is located in that city. But I am told Blanch has not attended any meetings or been involved in discussions about this investigation. But look, Anderson, where all this goes, it's unclear. We've seen them open other investigations into Trump's adversaries that have either uh gone nowhere or run into roadblocks um when they reach grand juries or judges.

[00:09:10]>> And do you know anything more about the investigation? I mean, how big it is, what kind of resources are devoted to it?

[00:09:16]>> It's a great question, Anderson. At this point, we have not been able to confirm, for example, if subpoenas have been sent out or how many lawyers are working on this. We know that this is currently being overseen by senior leaders in the deputy attorney general's office, but as I said, it's been outsourced to the US attorney in Chicago. And at this point, it's not clear how many resources they have dedicate the reporting. Thank you. For more on the investigation, I want to bring in a former federal prosecutor, CNN, senior legal analyst, Ellie Honig. Ellie, so no charges have been filed clearly uh early in this investigation. What would the Justice Department have to First of all, what do you think of this?

[00:10:08]>> Well, I Anderson, it's not a surprise.

[00:10:09]The pattern so far is unmistakable where virtually everybody who's ever crossed Donald Trump politically or personally has found themselves on the receiving end of a DOJ investigation or in some cases indictments. So Eugene Carol certainly fits that description as you showed in the opening montage. Uh and so it's shocking in some sense because this is a person who has sued Donald Trump successfully for over $80 million, but when you look at the broader pattern, it fits right in.

[00:10:37]So what would the uh what would the DOJ have to prove in order to prove perjury?

[00:10:44]I mean it see if correct that they're looking at this >> statement made in a deposition.

[00:10:52]>> Perjury cases are sometimes easier said than done and the burden on prosecutors is high. You have to of course ultimately prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. But prosecutors here will have to show that that testimony that Paula talked about back in 2022 was in fact false. That EJ and Carol knew it was false at the time and didn't, for example, learn later that it was false.

[00:11:14]And then finally, prosecutors have to show something called materiality, meaning was the false testimony relevant to some issue that actually mattered in the case or was it just a sort of throwaway detail. So you need a specific, provable, intentional false statement.

[00:11:30]And do you think Carol would have a vindictive prosecution defense if this ever ended up in federal court?

[00:11:38]>> Well, the definition legally of vindictive prosecution is when a person exercises their constitutional or legal rights and then is prosecuted as payback for that. And if we look at the history here, it's well known each and Carol sued Donald Trump successfully, $88 million, and then a couple years later finds herself on the receiving end of currently an investigation. who knows might become a prosecution. And if you look at this, look, just the other day, the indictment of Kilar Obgo Garcia, who was wrongly deported, that was thrown out for vindictive prosecution because a judge in that case said, "Well, Mr. Obreo Garcia asserted his rights and then he was being prosecuted as payback." And I think Eugene Carol would have a very similar argument. She would say, "I asserted my rights. I brought a civil lawsuit. I won." And now she will argue surely this is payback.

[00:12:27]in uh in normal times uh what would be the step from an investigation like this to actually charges coming?

[00:12:38]>> Well, so first of all, there's nothing that a person in Eugene Carol's position, a person being investigated by DOJ can do to stop DOJ. This is part of the awe inspiring, fearsome power that federal prosecutors have. You can investigate essentially whoever you want and essentially whatever way you want and there's nothing they can do unless and until they are actually charged. Now DOJ again, they have to prove their case. They're going to have to ultimately if they want to indict it, they have to bring it to a grand jury.

[00:13:07]But prosecutorial ethics and DOJ's own rules say you don't bring a case for an indictment to a grand jury until you're confident you can prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is ultimately what prosecutors will have to show here if they bring this indictment and if it winds up at a federal criminal trial.

[00:13:22]All right, Ellie Honick, thanks very much.

[00:13:24]Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Adam Smith. Congressman, I'm wondering what your reaction to to this news is the Trump Justice Department launching an investigation into Eugene Carol.

[00:13:35]>> Yeah. Well, first of all, I agree with your previous guest's legal analysis. I I guess I'd be more outraged by it. This is an unbelievable abuse of power and a continuation of an abuse of power by this president. He is using our government. Keep in mind, the Justice Department is not Donald Trump's. it belongs to the people of this country.

[00:13:52]He is using the Justice Department to persecute people he doesn't like is unbelievable. I mean, even not even from sort of a political standpoint, he's got something to gain from it. This is just pure vengeance being used by the Justice Department and it undermines the credibility of the Justice Department and it really undermines our representative democracy. I mean, it if this was an isolated case, it would be horrific. But, as you know, it's not an isolated case. I mean, there's a dozen plus people who have suffered this way under Donald Trump, and I wish more people would speak out forcefully against it.

[00:14:28]>> The the acting attorney general, Todd Blanch, has clearly pushed to speed up uh, you know, doing the president's bidding. We mentioned that he's been recused from this investigation because he worked as one of the president's personal attorneys on the Carol appeals.

[00:14:43]What overall message do you think they are trying to send the Justice Department to the president's political personal enemies? I mean, do you think this is about sending a message?

[00:14:53]>> Don't cross the president basically.

[00:14:56]Don't cross the president in any way. I mean, you've got Leticia James, James Comey, a long list of people who have been subject to this. They are trying to send a message. Donald Trump runs this country. the Constitution and the laws don't matter and he will use his power to come after you. Definitely trying to intimidate people, but also I think it's just petty vengeance. I mean, he's just going to go after anyone who has ever crossed him.

[00:15:22]>> I mean, it is sort of remarkable if this is weaponization of the Department of Justice to do this at a time when they are try when the president is trying to set up, you know, what certainly Democrats have called a slush fund of what nearly $1.8 8 billion dollar to reward people who they claim uh were victims of weaponization by the Department of Justice.

[00:15:46]>> Well, see, that's where this whole thing starts. And I want people to understand this because I know what I would refer to as respectable Republicans and conservatives who say, "Well, okay, but this is what the Biden administration and everybody else has done." No. No, it is not. It is not even close to that.

[00:16:03]And look, Donald Trump did things that were clearly questionable. Okay, we saw what happened on January 6th. He had classified documents spread all over his his bathroom down in Mara Lago. Okay.

[00:16:20]Investigating somebody who legitimately there is evidence of them having committed a crime is entirely different than picking out the people you don't like and then pouring through every document they've or sorry, every deposition or everything they've ever said under oath and say, "Oh, I could get them for lying." I mean, this is specifically targeted. What was going after Trump was stuff that was out there. We didn't go looking for that. It happened. So what Trump is doing here is unprecedented in the history of this country and unprecedented in its damage uh to our constitutional republic.

[00:16:57]>> Are you surprised at the that he has been able to find so many people to to do his bidding? I mean in the department of justice I mean he's brought them in obviously but um are you surprised at that at all?

[00:17:11]What I am surprised at is the complete unwillingness of the Republican party and Republicans in Congress to say enough that this is fundamentally wrong.

[00:17:22]That Trump as president is able to use his power to bring people in to do his bidding. That's not surprising, nor is it surprising that he's willing to do so. Um, I mean, he said it during the course of the campaign. Look, say what you want about Kla Harris as a candidate, but when she said, "Elect me.

[00:17:39]I'll work on your problems. Elect Trump, he'll get up every morning trying to figure out how to take vengeance on on the people he doesn't like. That's exactly what he said he was going to do and exactly what he's doing. The shocking thing is the number of what I again would consider to be respectable conservatives, Republicans, um you know, who are just willing to go, well, no, it's fine. It's fine because it's been done before. No, it hasn't been done before. I mean, apples and oranges doesn't even begin to describe it. I guess apples and watermelons, I don't know. I'm at I'm at a loss for the proper analogy here. Um, but no, this has not been done before and it is the Republicans in Congress who are letting him do it that that I think is the most shocking and appalling aspect of it.

[00:18:20]>> Congressman Smith, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

[00:18:24]The breaking news right now, exclusive new CNN reporting that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation of Eugene Carol, the woman who sued the president twice and won both times. The investigation is focused on whether Carol committed perjury and testimony tied to her two civil lawsuits against the president. One alleging alleging he sexually abused Carol in a New York department store in the mid1 1990s and later defamed her and then a second lawsuit for defamation for defaming her when in 2019 he repeatedly denied doing anything wrong, said she wasn't his type and claimed she made it up to boost sales of a book she wrote.

[00:18:58]Joining us now, Norm Eisen, founder of Democracy Defenders Action, as we'll discuss momentarily. He's also pursuing legal action over the president's settlement with the IRS and the $ 1.8 billion weaponization fund that sprang from it. Also with us, CNN senior political commentator David Urban. So Norm, first off, what's your reaction to the DOJ launching this criminal investigation into Egene Carol Anderson? It's so outrageous. Every American should be appalled at this pattern of Donald Trump utilizing the most fearsome power of our president.

[00:19:33]The investigation and possible prosecution uh of individuals who he perceives to be his adversaries.

[00:19:45]Uh first it was Tish James, that case was thrown out. Then Jim Comey, that case was thrown out. He's going after Comey again. That case is going to meet the same fate. This is garbage and it is alarming because it is a classic sign of authoritarians.

[00:20:04]Dictators would blush at Donald Trump's abuse of his criminal powers. U and uh it's not American.

[00:20:14]>> David, do you think an investigation like this is what the DOJ should be focused on?

[00:20:20]You know, Anderson, I I I I I think that they've got a lot of things to focus on, but I I would just ask Norm. I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is on perjury, but did she perjure herself or not, Norm, in this case? It seems to me she clearly purged herself. You can ask your colleague who solicited her, I think your your colleague at uh George Conway, who you who you you're associated with now, solicited Miss Carol to bring the suit and then helped set her up with Reed Hoffman. when she was being deposed, she denied that she was that that she knew that she was or she didn't deny she denied having any funding for it and then later admitted she she was getting the third party funding for it. So, I'm not quite sure what's so outrageous about, you know, someone who purged himself in a in a very serious proceeding now being looked at by DOJ for criminal prose.

[00:21:10]>> But what do you mean? Come on, Nor.

[00:21:11]Explain it to me. Why is that why is it wrong? this pattern this pattern of Donald Trump going after his adversaries where you already have you're not answering the you're not answer the question let me if let me answer it let me answer it okay >> this pattern he tried it with Jim Comey thrown out he tried it with Kish James thrown out not once but repeatedly the same thing will happen here if you pick over people's testimony you can always find some issue we don't even know What?

[00:21:43]We don't even know what this is. It's so Let me finish. David, let me finish. Let me finish please. You asked me a question. Okay.

[00:21:51]>> I have been criminal law.

[00:21:54]>> I have been Well, you don't set that prerogative, my friend. I have been >> Let's not talk over because with the with the feedback, it's very difficult.

[00:22:01]So, let's just let him answer.

[00:22:04]>> I have been practicing criminal law for 35 years. I have been practicing criminal law for 35 years. We have never seen a president engage in this kind of pattern. These allegations are nonsense.

[00:22:17]Anderson, and I'm sad to say this for our country, but every American should be alarmed. It reminds me of Stalin's secret police head.

[00:22:28]The question is, >> show me the man, I'll show you the crime.

[00:22:31]>> Okay. Norm, the question is I if if she if somebody did lie in a deposition, does that justify the Department of Justice launching an investigation in uh you know in this kind of a lawsuit?

[00:22:47]>> I'm not saying whether she did or or didn't.

[00:22:49]>> 30 Norman 35 years a >> seized upon Norm just answer the question.

[00:22:57]>> If we seized upon Yes, Anderson. If we seized upon every inaccuracy or every disputed fact in every deposition, there would be nothing but criminal prosecutions of everybody who gives a deposition. This kind of effort to go out and get an adversary and to cherrypick issues. We all know what's going on here. It's outrageous. No, these allegations would not be the basis for a prosecution in any presidential administration that I have ever seen.

[00:23:31]Even if it is true that there is a single question, David, David, no, David, let me ask you a question. Do David, do you not find it weird that the Department of Justice is zeroing in? I mean, they must have gone through all of Eugene Carol's depositions in all the multiple, you know, I assume there's a number of depositions to find something. Do you not find it, is that not odd that the Department of Justice would devote resources to something like that just out of the blue to like >> Yeah. So, so I'm happy to answer unlike Norm. I'm not going to filibuster you here. I I don't think it's weird. I think Norm loses all credibility when he when he just can't admit if somebody purges himself. This wasn't a small thing about like it was a Tuesday versus a Wednesday. This was material. You heard Ellie before say did she know it was false? Yes, she knew it was false.

[00:24:23]Was it material? Yes, she knew it was material. All these things are going to be proven out. Listen, it's who was funding your lawsuit? Who funded this?

[00:24:32]That's not something that just just she forgot conveniently. So, I don't think this has been out there. We don't know the question. We don't know the questions that were asked and answered.

[00:24:42]We don't know what she actually said. Uh so it's a little hard to to tell. We don't have the deposition in front of us. But >> you're 100% correct. 100%. So I will I will say this. I if those things are true, I'm not quite sure why they weren't prosecuted before. They should have been prosecuted. If you lie under oath in a in a deposition, the Department of Justice will prosecute.

[00:25:03]Ask Mike Flynn, right? Ask Mike Flynn about that. Ask, you know, ask, you know, uh, numerous people who've gone to jail for for perjury. It happens. Norm is is being disingenuous if he doesn't admit in his 35 years of being a criminal prosecutor, he hasn't seen it happen. So, do I think it's the best use of DOJ?

[00:25:24]Perhaps not.

[00:25:24]>> Right. Norm, let me ask you, this was a civil case, if I remember correctly, was it not?

[00:25:32]uh that Anderson, we don't know all the facts, but yes, it was a civil case. It was a deposition is the apparent allegation.

[00:25:41]>> So, it would it be unusual for the Department of Justice to look at a civil case or is it because it in >> it never happens, Anderson, that you go through a deposition. People give thousands of deposition depositions every day in this country uh in millions of cases that you would go through line by line. You find one incorrect answer.

[00:26:06]We don't even know if Eugene Carol had the information and you pounce on that for a criminal investigation.

[00:26:13]It is so apparent from the pattern what is happening here. It is shocking. It is outrageous. I do not know of cases no where you have a stray answer to a question like this and you prosecute it.

[00:26:27]It's crazy. It's wrong and it is alarming to have a president who abuses the criminal justice system in this way.

[00:26:36]That is a crisis for our rule of law.

[00:26:38]Tonight, the Justice Department goes after another of President Trump's enemies. This time it's Eugene Carol, a former magazine columnist who sued Trump and accused him of sexual assault. CNN has learned that the DOJ is investigating whether she committed perjury in connection with those lawsuits. In 2023, a Manhattan civil jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carol in a department store dressing room in the mid 1990s and awarded her $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation in that case. She was later awarded $83 million in a separate but related defamation case. Now, Trump has repeatedly denied those allegations and has appealed the 2023 judgment.

[00:27:22]Prosecutors theory hinges on this two 2022 deposition where Carol said that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. Later, it was revealed that billionaire Reed Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses. Hoffman has said that he had no involvement until Carol filed the lawsuit, which she says is common, which he says is common practice. Now, I think the bottom line of this is that if you were to tick through a list of all the people that Donald Trump wants to investigate, all the people he wants to charge, Eene Carol would be on that list, Stacey. And now she is being investigated despite successfully winning this lawsuit against him for defamation and for sexual assault. Yeah, she should not be on any list because this is so far a field of what the Department of Justice would normally do that I feel like they're almost lost forever. I mean, we saw James Comey get indicted over the sea shells. This is even worse because this was a woman, she's now 82 years old and in the 1990s, she she alleged back then that this sexual abuse happened by Donald Trump and she brought a lawsuit.

[00:28:34]the the statute in New York was extended uh the time was extended for her to bring a lawsuit and in 2023 she sued him in front of a civil jury for damages for defamation. Defamation is a false or misleading statement made about somebody to the public that causes them damage or harm. And her damage or harm that a jury believed was that first of all her allegations were true. Jury believed that they didn't believe Trump's denial that they weren't true. And they also believed that she was damaged. Her she was a journalist. Her reputation was damaged. He called her a liar, a hoax.

[00:29:10]He made it up. He said he didn't even know her. He wouldn't recognize her. And it turned down it turned out he went down in that lawsuit because they showed him a picture of her from uh years ago, 30 years ago. And his own lawyer said, "Can you identify this blonde woman in the picture?" And he said, "That's my wife, Mara." and he had made statements about Eugene Carol that um he's she's not even his type. So there's no way he could have done anything to her. So I think that was example.

[00:29:36]>> So they're hanging this on like the the such a thin read of no pun intended, no pun intended of um of whether or not some of her legal expenses were paid by a third party. Um, I mean, maybe you could litigate whether it's but why when she filed the lawsuit, after she filed the lawsuit, but but that alone seems to be incredibly incredibly thin.

[00:30:01]>> It's thin. It's weak. It's sort of it's fluff for Nutter. It was already decided actually by the trial judge. The issue already came up and the judge decided it. So, I'll explain a little bit because it's a little bit complicated.

[00:30:13]She's testifying in a deposition under oath before trial. And a deposition is a way that lawyers get out discovery. They discover information about the case.

[00:30:22]They ask questions so they know what to expect at trial. They know what they're dealing with. They decide if they're going to settle. She was asked, "Did you receive any outside funding for this lawsuit?" The deposition was 6 months before they went to trial. She had answered no. Then two weeks before she went to trial, her lawyers came forward in full disclosure to the court. these are her lawyers and said to the judge Reed Hoffman, the billionaire Reed Hoffman funded her part of her lawsuit out of Chicago. Trump's lawyers made a big stink about this. This is unfair and she she's a liar. So the judge allowed them to redepose her. They put her under oath again. They asked her questions about that and it was completely cleared because the judge said, "I'm fine with her credibility. It was not damaged and I'm going to let her testify at trial and this cannot come up." So, one of the things that you should know about this is that Todd Blanch, who's now the acting um attorney general, he is a former attorney of President Trump's and represented him in this case. He's recused himself from this. But does that actually clear the the Justice Department from the accusation that what they're doing effectively is going after people that the president wants to see prosecuted? Well, to me the number one question is did she commit perjury? If the answer that's what I know you gave us the background what Stacy just said which is that that issue was litigated in the case the it went before a judge and the judge found that it did not affect her credibility at a certain point it was not pertinent to the case. So is that really the main question here? Yeah, and I understand that the timing seems to be the biggest piece of this to what you laid out. But if she did commit perjury, then the next question is should she be held accountable for that? And I think this I think this this dividing line is like everything else is where you sit on the political aisle. If you're on one side, >> I I don't mean to interrupt you and I am I apologize. You are interrupting. I know I am. I am. But this is so not political. This is about when the Justice Department goes after people for perjury which can and can put somebody in jail. They go after racketeering cases where somebody might have lied on the stand. They go after political corruption cases. They don't go after a civil lawsuit for defamation out of New York against a woman who's now 8 years old >> and in a pre-trial a pre-trial deposition at that. But but again, >> Trump has Trump lost this case against Eugene Carol.

[00:33:00]>> He did.

[00:33:01]>> Period. The end. And now the just his justice department is putting her potentially uh in an investigation that could lead to a trial that that could lead to her being in leg legal jeopardy.

[00:33:12]>> It doesn't pass a smell test. And to Stacy's point, I actually did a did some research before I came on the show and looked at how many times has the Justice Department actually prosecuted criminally prosecuted somebody for civil deposition perjury. Couldn't find any examples. There may be some, but I couldn't find any examples at all. And the evidence seems suggested it's so incredibly rare that it clearly seems to be political. If you add that to the James Comey investigation because of his seashells. If you add that to Leticia James because she went after him. If you add that to Don Lemon, the fact that he was out of church and Trump doesn't like him. You add that to Jay Powell, the fact that he's the Federal Reserve chair and Trump doesn't like him. He wants interest rates hiked. Every t rates lowered. Every time Trump has an enemy, those people mysteriously end up being prosecuted or investigated by the federal government from the Justice Department. And the person who's running the Justice Department is his personal lawyer right now. That just does not pass anybody's.

[00:34:04]>> How many times has a statute of limitation been extended by a state legislature in order to very specifically target one individual?

[00:34:11]>> What does it have to do with the fact that Donald Trump is actually But I also want to address it for all survivors. It wasn't just for Donald Trump.

[00:34:22]>> But let me address Peter that that's not what happened to it was not extended for Trump. It was I mean I my recollection is this is the me too era, right?

[00:34:32]Correct. And so these the statute of limitations was extended for victims in general.

[00:34:38]>> The alleged occurred just happened to be in that time frame.

[00:34:42]>> The alleged incident occurred when I was in elementary school and that statute of limitation was extended to when I was a member of Congress. I mean this was a very large window that was >> but that had nothing to do with that.

[00:34:51]>> I guess this is because the the statute of limitations on sexual assault cases in many many states are very short too short and it takes a long time we've seen through the me too movement through the Harvey Weinstein situation how long it takes women to come forward through the Epstein situation most certainly >> so this this is done in every state that you can't narrow this down to but we're also yeah we're also dealing with you mentioned on the question of the exception of like the perjury charge and how rare that is. I mean, we're about to talk about Mike Flood, who was mentioned in an earlier statement. He succeeded Jeff Foronberry, who was a sitting member of Congress, who was investigated for campaign finance fraud from some foreign donations without having a lawyer present. He answered FBI's questions. He got a he was charged with lying to a federal official because he was answering off of his best recollection. The next thing you know, he is being indicted. He's being criminally charged. He resigns from Congress. He does the honorable right thing. like these questions of whether or not when you are trying to be truthful and accurate when it comes to the law, >> the federal government, but what we're seeing is the federal government using the Department of Justice going after somebody who Trump dislikes, his personal enemy, for a civil deposition perjury allegation. That never happens.

[00:36:04]>> The question that means that we can't trust this guy to to to make honest decisions.

[00:36:13]>> Committed perjury. Should they not be held account?

[00:36:19]>> One one second. Let me just play Let me play what Reed Hoffman said about this um a couple years ago. Listen, >> it is a standard practice. It 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. So, you're not trying to to create something that's that that isn't substantive real that a person isn't really doing. We uh my team looked at it and thought that it was a that that uh her voice should be heard that because she was challening someone who's so much more wealthy and powerful it shouldn't be squashed. The press kind of made a a big deal out of a secret. It's like look actually in fact most philanthropy in the world and most philanthropy I do. I don't like publish list of it. I just do it.

[00:37:05]>> So I mean look if you want to litigate whether she was telling the truth or not. Um, I think there's actually a very strong case that she might not have been lying or withholding anything at all because of the timing that Stacy laid out. A a deposition that was 6 months before trial and then a disclosure that happened before trial and then according to Ree Hoffman, he wasn't there >> on the day that she filed the lawsuit.

[00:37:31]He was he came in after the fact.

[00:37:33]>> This all go it kind of boils down to the fact that we know that the president is vengeful and he's petty. I mean, and he is that has been his entire character reveal. So, it is impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt. And we've seen how this Department of Justice has behaved. The whole reason Pam Bondi isn't there anymore is because she wasn't ruthless enough to do the things that Todd Blanchard is clearly willing to do. And so, you guys want us to kind of erase the history and erase the persona of Donald Trump. And we cannot separate the two because of who he has often shown himself to be. And you know, and there's another reason why his fingerprints are are all over this. This trial happened in New York, but this case, this DOJ investigation was referred to US attorneys in Chicago, which is where Reed Hoffman has his nonprofit. It didn't need to go to Chicago. It went to Chicago because if it were to lead to something, Trump does not do well with New York juries. So, they're putting it in Chicago. It's ridiculous. The whole >> We'll see how well he does.

[00:38:32]>> All right. Now, to a story that was first reported by CNN. Sources are saying that the US Justice Department has now launched a criminal investigation into Egene Carol, who's the former magazine columnist who's accusing President uh who previously accused President Trump of sexual assault. We're now learning that the probe is focused on whether Carol committed perjury in testimony tied to her two civil lawsuits against the US president. CN's Paula Reed fills us in from Washington.

[00:38:59]The investigation into Eugene Carol is just the latest in a series of moves that the Justice Department has made against President Trump's long-term adversaries. Now, this investigation, we're told, focuses on a 2022 deposition where Carol said that she had received no outside funding, but her lawyers later informed the judge that she had received funding from billionaire Reed Hoffman for legal fees and other expenses. Now, ahead of the trial, the judge found no issue with her credibility and blocked Trump lawyers from even being able to ask about this funding issue. Now, this case, we are told, is being handled out of the US attorney's office in Chicago. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch has been recused from this case because of his work in a prior Carol related appeal.

[00:39:45]We're told he has not been involved in any meetings about this or had any discussions about this investigation.

[00:39:52]I'm told that it was referred to Chicago because that is where Reed Hoffman's nonprofit is located. Now, Carol, who is 82 years old, is currently embroiled in multiple legal battles with President Trump. Juries have awarded her millions of dollars in damages, but President Trump is appealing those judgments. His appeal of a $5 million judgment in a sexual abuse case has been pending before the Supreme Court for quite some time. The court has deferred 12 times on whether it will hear that case. Now, Carol's attorneys declined to comment on this reporting. Paula Reed, CNN, Washington.

[00:40:34]Legal experts are weighing in on the Justice Department's latest move. A former special counsel at the Defense Department was asked if this is an unprecedented situation.

[00:40:44]This is not usual for the Justice Department to go back into an old civil case from years ago and pick out one statement in a deposition that even the federal judge in that case said was not directly material to the ultimate conclusion in the case and one in which her own lawyers said that uh she didn't recall at the time she was asked the question and that she had no direct contact with the nonprofit that provided those funds. So, there's all sorts of complications as to why the Justice Department would never think of that as something that's a live case. She is now one of several who are going to raise uh the claim of a motion to dismiss to throw the entire case out for vindictive or selective prosecution. She will be able to list all of the times that President Trump has gone after her personally and has tried to say that he would lower the hammer on her. There's a very strong case of this. That's why I think even the discussion as to what the strength of the case against her might be is going to end up being premature.

[00:41:43]There's a very high likelihood she'd win on that. And when I say that that is such a rare thing, it is very rare for those kinds of cases to emerge of vindictive and selective prosecution.

[00:41:52]And just in the last few days, a federal district court threw out the case against her Garcia saying that it was based on selective and vindictive prosecution by this justice department.

[00:42:02]>> All right, this morning, a CNN exclusive. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Eugene Carol, the former magazine columnist who accused President Trump of sexual assault. Not just that, separate juries found him liable for sexually abusing her in a New York department store in the mid 1990s and for defaming Carol in 2019 when he repeatedly denied assaulting her. This is some of what he said about her.

[00:42:30]>> I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who's also accused other men of things as you know. Uh it is a totally false accusation.

[00:42:40]>> I said, "Well, it's politically incorrect. She's not my type."

[00:42:43]>> I met a woman in front of Burgdorf Goodman. Took her up to a changing booth right outside where the cash register is. This is New York.

[00:42:52]Why didn't you scream? Uh I was in trauma.

[00:42:57]Together, the judgments against the president added up to more than $88 million. Trump is pursuing appeals in both cases. Now, multiple sources tell CNN the Justice Department is now investigating whether Carol committed perjury during a 2022 deposition with a statement she made indicating she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. It was later revealed that billionaire Reed Hoffman's nonprofit paid some legal fees and expenses.

[00:43:26]Carol's team has declined to comment on this new investigation. Kate, >> let's talk about this. Joining us right now is CNN's senior legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Ellie Honig.

[00:43:36]Thanks for coming in, Ally. 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 again?

[00:43:56]>> So, perjury cases are serious. They're punishable by maximum five years in prison, 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.

[00:44:17]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.

[00:44:36]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?

[00:45:04]>> 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.

[00:45:41]>> 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?

[00:45:53]>> So this is very relevant legally and this could overcome the entire case. If there comes a day where Egene 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.

[00:46:35]>> First reported by CNN, sources say the US Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Eene Carol, who is the former magazine columnist who accused President Trump of sexual assault. We've learned that probe is focused on whether Carol committed perjury in testimony tied to her two civil lawsuits against the president.

[00:46:56]Remember, juries awarded Carol millions of dollars in damages following judgments in the sexual abuse case and a separate defamation case. She is still embroiled in legal battles with the president as he appeals. This marks the latest effort by this Justice Department to investigate President Trump's personal foes.

[00:47:16]>> This morning, multiple sources tell us the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Eugene Carroll, the writer who accused President Trump of sexual assault.

[00:47:24]Separate juries awarded Carol more than $88 million, finding the president liable for sexually abusing her in her New York department store in the mid1 1990s and then defaming her in 2019 when he denied the assault repeatedly. Now, we are told the Justice Department is looking into whether Carol committed perjury when she testified that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. It was later revealed that billionaire Reed Hoffman's nonprofit had paid some legal fees and expenses.

[00:47:50]Joining us now, CNN political analyst Olen Ko Youngs of the New York Times and Ron Brownstein with Bloomberg.

[00:47:55]Gentlemen, it's great to see you. We talked about the legal implications surrounding this. Owen, I just want to start a little bit on the politics here with noting that all these lawsuits, investigations, what some people call a retribution campaign, it's not the economy, which is what voters say they are most concerned about. So, when something like this pops up, how much does the White House think it helps?

[00:48:21]Well, for one, I think it's just worth emphasizing again that this is incredibly unusual. It's not activity you would usually see out of a justice department that, you know, has long been known as had a norm of being independent of the White House. And it does affirm concerns, including from some Justice Department officials themselves, of the president's control over this agency as well. This is and does would appear to be the retribution tour just kicked into another level here. Now, for the politics, as you said, I mean, I can recall when Chief of Staff Susie Wilds was quoted, I believe in the Vandy Fair piece saying that the retribution tour would be temporary and that there would then be a shift to uh traveling the country and focusing more of the White House's messaging on the kitchen table issues that were the concern of Americans throughout the country. We have seen that there's rising economic anxiety and frustration particularly as the war in Iran has gone on.