E. Jean Carroll being criminally INVESTIGATED by DOJ over alleged perjury: REPORTS | RISING

Añadido: 2026-05-31

[00:00:05]New this morning, the Justice Department has reportedly launched a criminal probe into Eene Carol. As you may remember, Carol is the former magazine columnist who sued President Trump for sexual assault. Now, CNN was the first to report the news and they write, quote, "The investigation is focused on whether Carol committed perjury in testimony tied to her two civil lawsuits against the president. one alleging he sexually abused Carol in a New York department store in the 1990s and a second for defaming her in 2019 when he repeatedly denied the assault. She said she wasn't his type and claimed she made it up to boost sales of a book. According to CNN, prosecutors are focused on a statement that Carol made during a 2022 deposition. She said she received no funding for her lawsuit at the time, but it did turn out that LinkedIn co-founder Reed Hoffman had paid for some of her legal fees and expenses. Well, sorry.

[00:01:00]That's what she went after Trump for was uh misstatements related to their matter. She, you know, she alleges that he sexually assaulted her in this department store. He said, "No, that's not true." She then pursued a a a lawsuit at him saying that what he'd said was false because she had he had assaulted her according to her. That's what got litigated. So now Trump is saying well she said in the in the court case that she'd not received outside financial help and it turns out she had received outside financial help. So I'm not sure why there shouldn't be penalties for her when what she ultimately went after him for was uh misstatements. Um, again, I bring up how all the time you can people make misstatements in the course of police matters, legal investigations, depositions, lawsuits, and this is the power the government has to destroy you for making a false statement. So, this is more of that. But I that's what she tried to do to Trump. So, what's the problem?

[00:01:59]>> This is the power that the government has to destroy Trump's political enemies. And there was going to be a way >> if you lied under oath about having got >> they found it. They found you. You always say if you want to find something to get somebody on, you can find it. You can comb through their history and find a reason to put somebody at least uh you know through the ringer if they don't go to jail. And so that's what the president is trying to do to EG and Carol because she won two different cases against him. The first case in 2023 to clarify it wasn't just all pushed together was about sexual abuse and defamation. And she was awarded $5 million and the jury concluded that President Trump, who wasn't president at the time, sexually abused her in the 1990s and defamed her in 2022 by denying the allegations. The second case in a separate 2024 case >> proves nothing. But >> found >> I know they found Trump. What do you mean it proves nothing? This is a It's a civil case.

[00:02:49]>> Civil cases, too.

[00:02:50]>> Okay. Okay. So, what do you say about the OJ Simpson civil case?

[00:02:53]>> Uh, I think that OJ Simpson was guilty because the evidence >> Oh, wait. No, no, it proves nothing. No, civil case proves nothing, though. We got a guilty verdict in the civil case.

[00:03:01]>> I don't think the verdict the verdict is not the reason I think he was guilty.

[00:03:04]Uh, the reason I think he was guilty is because the evidence is overwhelming.

[00:03:08]There was no evidence in the Eugene and Carol Donald Trump matter. It's just what he how he says it happened and how she says it happened from a million years ago. I don't know how I don't know whether it happened or not. I have no idea. I don't know how anyone could have. was awarded 83.3 million. There was one time 5 million and another time.

[00:03:24]I'm just giving you an example of times that people were awarded money in civil cases similarly to OJ Simpson where it's like, well, this civil jury found that this person did it or didn't do it. And so the civil two different civil cases found that President Trump did these things according to the civil cases. And I'm just reading the facts to you to discuss. And so the fact that he's trying to find something to get her back, it's like Leticia James all over again. You got measure. I'm going to get you back.

[00:03:48]>> Civil cases will get you back lower burden of proof than criminal cases.

[00:03:52]It's just preponderance of evidence. Um, and it relies on, you know, the whims of >> And so this is the difference between so people have civil cases against the president like Eene Carol and like Leticia James, right? And then the president goes after them with criminal cases. So now he's going after Carol to put her in jail. He's going after Leticia James for renting a house to her family member. Like this is what he tries to do. throwing lying in her mouth is a is a creme is a crime. So we know it's a crime criminal offense creme de la creme.

[00:04:22]>> Uh you can't do that. You can't do that.

[00:04:24]>> It's You're right. I'm a rule follower.

[00:04:25]She's not following the rules. But I mean this is another example, classic example of the president just trying to get someone back. And >> so do you see how wealthy liberal elites Reed Hoffman finance this lawsuit to try to harm Trump? So liberals do this too.

[00:04:42]wealthy liberals out to play this game of personal destruction.

[00:04:46]>> Why can't they have been friends and he he knows that she might need money?

[00:04:49]>> Friends, >> how do you know that he might she might need money to prosecute?

[00:04:52]>> It's just his good friends.

[00:04:53]>> If your friend tells you something happened to you in the 90s that you hadn't really spoken about and now you're ready to share your story and you're like, man, this is going to cost a lot to go up against somebody who might be the president of the United States again and somebody's like, listen, I got a billion. I'll help you.

[00:05:06]I don't have a billion to spare. You need money to fund a long ago sexual misconduct accusation for which there is no evidence. Uh I am certainly the wrong person to come to for for help. Uh I would say don't pursue.

[00:05:21]>> What kind of cases talk to a therapist?

[00:05:23]>> What kind of cases can I come to you for that? If I need help down the road things that happened a million years a it's not >> it has to be something in the window of like five years for you to say yes to help me out.

[00:05:31]>> Yes. Because people people misremember misrecollect things that happened that long ago and they misremember events in a way in ways that are advantageous to them. Not just for sexual miscond but for anything. And so I'm not I'm not trustful of memory particularly long ago memory just in general.

[00:05:48]>> All right. Tough crowd. The New York Post surprise some by calling out what it says are ethical issues in the Trump administration. That's up next in my lens.