Nonilex

Despicable

#DOJ launches a criminal investigation into #Trump #rape survivor #EJeanCarroll

The investigation is focused on whether Carroll committed perjury in testimony tied to her 2 civil lawsuits against Trump–one when testifying about the #SexualAssault by Trump in a NY department store in the mid-1990s, & another for defaming her when in 2019 he repeatedly denied the assault, said she wasn’t his type & claimed she made it up to boost book sales.

#law #LegalEthics
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/27/politics/exclusive-justice-department-launched-e-jean-carroll-investigation

Exclusive: Justice Department launches a criminal investigation into Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll

The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the former magazine columnist who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

CNN
May 27 at 11:19pmWeb
Show threadNonilex3d ago

Prosecutors’ theory hinges on a 2022 deposition statement by Carroll, 82, that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, though it was later revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees & expenses.

…The probe is the latest move in the #DOJ’s ceaseless, & strained, efforts to meet #Trump’s demands to target his long-standing personal foes.

#law #LegalEthics #RevengePolitics #whitewashing #propaganda #rape #RapistInChief

Show threadNonilex3d ago

Under acting Attorney General #ToddBlanche, the #DOJ has pushed to speed up #Trump’s campaign of #retribution. But the cases he’s brought since taking the reins of the department in April have been heavily criticized & are likely to face challenges in court over allegations of politicization.

#law #LegalEthics #RevengePolitics #whitewashing #propaganda #rape #RapistInChief

Show threadlin11c3d ago
@Nonilex
We must change our legal system so that when people win their cases that is it. THEY WON! It's done. Years later they can't be weaponized and overturned. This is insane.
Show threadPaul_IPv63d ago

@Nonilex

so happy to see the bar association getting involved with him and pushing on the garcia case(s) abuse. would love to see any of the current DOJ hachet folks and SCOTUS all lose their bar accreditation at minimum. prosecution would be even better.

Show thread𝐉𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫2d ago
@Nonilex And that's a really stupid theory. Perjury isn't just any lie; it's a lie about a subject that's "material to the action." That is, it has to have some potential effect on the outcome. In this case, the action involved whether Trump engaged in certain conduct involving parts of his body and parts of Carroll's. That's what the jury needed to decide. The alleged lie was that Carroll said she wasn't getting outside funding for her legal fees. Even supposing she actually was, how is that material? How would that fact, if she had admitted it in her deposition and Trump's lawyers had pointed it out to the jury, have made them less likely to determine that he did the thing with parts of his body? Trump's lawyers would have framed it as "and this proves that she's just suing because she's greedy and wants money," but even if it did prove that (which it really doesn't), so effin' what? Of COURSE she wanted money. ALL lawsuits are about money. How is this fact material to the actual question before the jury?
Show threadDuckbilled Plattypus.2d ago

@Nonilex

Ianal

Carroll's lawyers were paid on contingency, not by a third party. Contingency means they only get paid if they win. Carroll understood this was the representation agreement. That was never in dispute.

What Trump argues is that Democratic donor Reid Hoffman donated money to a non-profit that then awarded some of that money (since 2017) to a variety of litigants involved in cases with "litigants subject to violent threats" to help cover some fees for non-covered litigation expenses or fees, including Carroll's case.

They gave her that award in 2020, a year after Carroll filed v Trump. So the timeline does not support the claim that Carroll was put up to suing Trump by Hoffman or "the Democrats". Neither side states Hoffman ever met Carroll. So, there was no Democratic donor conspiracy or "lawfare"; Ms Carroll sued Donald Trump, her lawyers are paid on contingency if they won, ie so Donald Trump paid Bobbi Kaplan for beating his and Blanche's loser asses. There is no provable material nexus between Carroll's case and a political party.

That Carroll forgot or misunderstood that a third party paid non-covered fees is not material to her pursuing or winning her case. It's not perjury. Or Trump should be tried for committing perjury about a photo he saw, in which he claimed Carroll was his ex-wife Marla Maples.

Both Carroll and Trump are elderly. Carroll voluntarily corrected her error to the Court. Trump never admitted he erred about the photo.

Show threadGhostOnTheHalfShell3d ago

@Nonilex

Does this mean she will eventually claim on the weaponization fund?

I have no problem money going to her. And no, I know it’s not my tax dollars. When the government writes checks the act creates money.

Show threadThorium3d ago
@Nonilex Screw these losers. I look forward to any "case" being tossed summarily.
Show threadbouriquet3d ago
@Nonilex Why would anyone who is capable of leaving the country and establishing a home elsewhere without dependency on USG payments like Social Security not exercise that right while they still can?
Show threadJames Endres Howell3d ago
@Nonilex I dunno I am starting to worry that at some point people 's faith in lawyers could begin to be diminished
Show threadCarolyn3d ago
@jameshowell @Nonilex All the lawyers around the government. They are ALL orange ass kissers.
Show threadApply The Ripley Doctrine!3d ago

@Nonilex

W T F.

Seriously.

1.5 years ago I said jokingly, I'd advice everybody who ever had a spat with the Orange Abomination to leave the U.S. soonish. Seems I was more right than I really care for.

Show thread@pineywoozle ‘s #3WordNote3d ago
@Nonilex These people are scum.