FOLLOW US

By Samuel López | USA Herald

The legal war surrounding President Donald Trump and writer E. Jean Carroll just took a dramatic and potentially explosive turn — one that could now reshape public perception of one of the most politically charged civil cases in modern American history.

According to multiple reports, including CNN, the U.S. Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into Carroll over allegations that she may have provided false testimony under oath during deposition proceedings tied to her lawsuits against Trump. The reported investigation centers on whether Carroll committed perjury while testifying that she had received no outside financial support for her litigation against the president.

That statement now sits at the center of a rapidly intensifying federal inquiry.

The revelation is sending shockwaves through legal and political circles because Carroll’s lawsuits against Trump resulted in two separate jury verdicts awarding her a combined $88.3 million in damages after jurors found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s allegations and has continued fighting the verdicts through the appellate process, with both cases now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Now, federal prosecutors reportedly want to know whether the integrity of portions of those proceedings may have been compromised from the start.

According to CNN, prosecutors are specifically examining Carroll’s 2022 deposition testimony given during questioning by then-Trump attorney Alina Habba. During that sworn testimony, Carroll allegedly stated she had received no outside funding connected to the litigation. However, reports indicate that roughly two weeks before trial, Carroll’s attorneys disclosed to the court and Trump’s legal team that billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman’s nonprofit organization had, in fact, helped cover some of Carroll’s legal fees and expenses.

That disclosure has now become a potential legal landmine.

Under federal law, knowingly making materially false statements under oath can expose a witness to criminal liability for perjury or false declarations. Whether prosecutors ultimately believe Carroll intentionally misled opposing counsel — or whether the discrepancy can be explained through legal nuance or misunderstanding — remains unclear. But the mere existence of a DOJ criminal investigation into a plaintiff who secured one of the largest defamation verdicts in American political history is extraordinary.