Trump’s DOJ Launches SHOCKING Investigation Into E. Jean Carroll

Summary of Trump’s DOJ Launches SHOCKING Investigation Into E. Jean Carroll

by Crooked Media

15m•May 29, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of Trump’s DOJ Launches SHOCKING Investigation Into E. Jean Carroll

This Crooked Media segment breaks down CNN’s report that the Trump-era DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the writer who won nearly $90 million in civil judgments against Donald Trump for sexual abuse and defamation. The conversation with legal scholar Leah Littman argues that the move looks less like legitimate law enforcement and more like retaliation, intimidation, and an effort to help Trump escape accountability.

What the DOJ Is Investigating

The stated basis

  • The reported DOJ probe centers on whether Carroll allegedly lied about outside funding for her litigation.
  • That funding issue is described as tangential to the actual verdicts against Trump.
  • The transcript references Reid Hoffman as one source of outside support.

Why it matters legally

  • The panel notes that this funding issue was already addressed in prior judicial opinions.
  • Appellate judges found Carroll’s explanation plausible and noted there was no evidence she personally interacted with the alleged funders.

Why the Segment Says This Is “Bonkers”

The core critique

  • The hosts and Littman argue that DOJ normally does not prosecute people simply because a court found one side’s account less credible.
  • The fact that Carroll won her civil cases against Trump does not, by itself, justify criminal investigation.
  • The segment frames the move as an attempt to punish a woman who accused Trump of sexual assault and prevailed in court.

Todd Blanche conflict

  • The discussion highlights that Todd Blanche, now at DOJ and acting in a top legal role, was Trump’s lawyer in the Carroll case.
  • They note his reported recusal, but mock the idea that the administration’s ethics rules mean much in practice.

Supreme Court and Immunity Issues

Trump’s possible legal strategy

  • The segment explains that Trump may try to use:
    • Presidential immunity, and/or
    • A DOJ substitution argument that the United States should replace Trump as the defendant.

Why that matters

  • If Trump’s alleged defamation of Carroll is treated as an official act, it could be shielded under the Supreme Court’s immunity doctrine.
  • If DOJ substitutes itself as the defendant, Trump may also try to invoke federal protections that limit certain lawsuits against the government, including for intentional torts like defamation.
  • The panel sees this as an especially alarming way to potentially erase a civil verdict.

Vindictive Prosecution Concerns

The main warning

  • Littman says Carroll would likely have a strong argument for vindictive prosecution if charged.
  • The reasoning:
    • The alleged conduct does not appear criminal.
    • Trump and his DOJ have been openly hostile toward Carroll for years.
    • The timing and context suggest retaliation, not neutral enforcement.

Broader pattern

  • The conversation connects this to a larger Trump-world pattern of using the Justice Department against perceived enemies.
  • It also references recent court skepticism toward DOJ cases, suggesting judges and grand juries are increasingly wary of weak “paper cases.”

Political Takeaway

Why the hosts think this is really about politics

  • The segment argues the point is not to win a real case, but to terrorize people who might speak against Trump.
  • The message, as framed here, is: if you challenge him, you may be investigated, indicted, or forced to spend time and money defending yourself.

Larger context

  • The hosts tie the move to Trump’s broader governing style:
    • grievance politics,
    • self-protection,
    • corruption,
    • and a willingness to weaponize institutions.
  • They also argue there is a misogynistic dimension to the politics of reviving the Carroll fight.

Bottom Line

  • The DOJ investigation into E. Jean Carroll is portrayed as weak on the merits and vindictive in motive.
  • The segment sees it as part of a larger Trump strategy: use the power of government to revisit old defeats, intimidate critics, and potentially sidestep an unfavorable civil judgment.
  • The key takeaway is that this looks less like justice and more like retaliation dressed up as legal process.