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

Tropical Wilds said:

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 and expenses."

https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/27/politics/exclusive-justice-department-launched-e-jean-carroll-investigation
But why don't more women come forward after they're assaulted...?

Click to expand...

In these cases, I don't think the point of contention is the "what", but rather the "when"

Time will tell if there's grounds for perjury in this instance.

I don't think anyone has an issue with women coming forward after an assault.

But when decades go by, and they suddenly feel 'compelled' to come forward, only after extraneous circumstances have changed and a bunch of other factors are in the mix that are muddying the waters, I think that's the point of contention with some of these cases.


I don't know if there's merit to her allegations or not, I wasn't there -- given Trump's history with women, I can absolutely believe he's the kind of person who had no problems "getting handsy". But I don't think it's unreasonable to question motives a bit for cases where a person (who hasn't been shy about accusing other men of similar conduct in the past) suddenly feels compelled to come forward 10+ years later only after the person is in high-profile politics and is a name that's constantly in the 24-hour news cycle.


Hypothetical:
If I was at a party in 2008, and got drunk and grabbed a woman...

Fast forward to 2026, I run for the Senate (for the political team opposite hers) and win.

Then she now "feels compelled" to come forward and tell the tale.

It's not unreasonable to ask the question "Well, what's actually bothering her more, Rob's inappropriate behavior at that party 18 years ago? Or Rob becoming a Senator for the opposing political team and pushing policies she doesn't like?"

Tropical Wilds said:

Plenty of people have problems with women coming forward with allegations after an assault. Case in point: your whole post where you say people don't have an issue, then you go on to talk about all the issues you have with the conditions in which they come forward.


So there's the issue you have with women coming forward...


And there's the minimizing of what happened, another reason women don't come forward.


And there's the attempt to discredit her because of what she has said about other assaults. Another reason women don't come forward.


In 2008, going public only means something to the small circle of people involved or social circle. If you run for Senate years later, a woman absolutely can say "I know him, he grabbed me when he got drunk at a party" and it will be reported on because now there's a public interest. That's not the woman's fault.

Like I said, this whole post is a case study in why women don't come forward. You say "nobody has an issue with women coming forward," but then you say the timing is suspect, the length of time is suspect, describe his actions as getting "handsy" vs. she was assaulted, she may or may have accused others (which apparently doesn't point to a potential problem with men's behavior on a whole, but means a woman is less credible the more times it happens), she might trying to get attention, she may be looking for a payout, might be hoping to to sabotage Republicans, implying that it's NBD if somebody is grabbed/groped... You even go as far as to say you don't have a problem thinking he'd do it because it's consistent with his behavior to other women, but let's talk about why the actual problem is the victim coming forward and not that this dude is the problem.

When you add to that the other stuff, the threats, the harassments, the microscope victims are put under, it's just one big "you know what, he did it to me, I'm sure he did it to others, he'll do it to others if he gets the chance, but I know coming forward will ruin me more than him and nothing about his behavior will change, so nevermind."

Click to expand...

It's inaccurate to take a very unique case (that's in no way reflective of any normal situation), and portray that as a "case study".

Is "assaulted by a famous billionaire years and years ago who's running for president and leading in the polls in a hyperpolarized election" a common occurrence?

What would be the motivation for waiting until that exact time (decades later) to come forward, vs. going to the authorities much sooner?

If we switched the type of assault crime, would be discussing this the same way?

If, say, Graham Platner got drunk and punched me in the face and threatened to stab me in a bar parking lot 10 years ago when I was on a work trip in Maine. And I waited until now (when he's on the cusp of potentially snagging a senate seat and has some popularity within a particular political circle) to come forward to tell everyone about it -- after being on record numerous times voicing displeasure at the types of political policies he's promoting.

Would people be unreasonable in assuming that perhaps my motives weren't just purely about "getting justice for myself for the bar assault" in that scenario? Or would people perhaps think I was leveraging what happened to me for additional reasons?


And I know people across the board understand this concept and recognize the murky parts of this topic, because you could see a stark contrast (drawn almost perfectly down political lines) pertaining to allegations against Trump vs. the Tara Reade allegations against Biden.

Left leaning publications had no qualms with asking the "uncomfortable questions" about the latter case.


Why was it acceptable to point out the track record of Tara Reade (which happens to share a lot of similarities to the track record E. Jean Carroll) in that instance?

Was anyone citing this Politico piece (or the dozens of pieces like it from top left-leaning journalism outfits) as evidence of "You see! This is why women don't want to come forward"?

ThatRobGuy said:

It's inaccurate to take a very unique case (that's in no way reflective of any normal situation), and portray that as a "case study".

Click to expand...

She called your post a case study, not E. Jean Carroll's case.

ThatRobGuy said:

Is "assaulted by a famous billionaire years and years ago who's running for president and leading in the polls in a hyperpolarized election" a common occurrence?

What would be the motivation for waiting until that exact time (decades later) to come forward, vs. going to the authorities much sooner?

If we switched the type of assault crime, would be discussing this the same way?

If, say, Graham Platner got drunk and punched me in the face and threatened to stab me in a bar parking lot 10 years ago when I was on a work trip in Maine. And I waited until now (when he's on the cusp of potentially snagging a senate seat and has some popularity within a particular political circle) to come forward to tell everyone about it -- after being on record numerous times voicing displeasure at the types of political policies he's promoting.

Would people be unreasonable in assuming that perhaps my motives weren't just purely about "getting justice for myself for the bar assault" in that scenario? Or would people perhaps think I was leveraging what happened to me for additional reasons?

Click to expand...

Laying aside the obvious differences between the situation you're describing and Carroll's sexual assault, no, it is not unreasonable for you to come forward about something that you feel might disqualify a candidate from office when it looks like they might be poised to win an election. Maybe you have ulterior motives, but that doesn't change the reality of your experience - and voters deserve to know about it.

ThatRobGuy said:

Was anyone citing this Politico piece (or the dozens of pieces like it from top left-leaning journalism outfits) as evidence of "You see! This is why women don't want to come forward"?

Click to expand...

Yes, actually:
(I found at least one other article saying similar things, but the language was too spicy for this forum)

RocksInMyHead said:

She called your post a case study, not E. Jean Carroll's case.

Click to expand...

A distinction without much of a difference, as the details surrounding this case are very unique to this case.

As my response to this case and set of circumstances is very different than my response would be to a woman (who's not in the limelight) coming forward with allegations against an ex-husband (who nobody has ever heard of) about an incident from 3-4 years ago.

RocksInMyHead said:

Laying aside the obvious differences between the situation you're describing and Carroll's sexual assault, no, it is not unreasonable for you to come forward about something that you feel might disqualify a candidate from office when it looks like they might be poised to win an election. Maybe you have ulterior motives, but that doesn't change the reality of your experience - and voters deserve to know about it.

Click to expand...

That notion, in an of itself, is implying that justice for the actual incident isn't the primary motivator.

If "Whether or not the person decides to eventually get into politics and looks poised to win" is the differentiator in the decision to either come forward or not come forward, then people can't get too bent of shape over a 3rd party looking at the situation and suggesting that it could be politically motivated.

RocksInMyHead said:

Yes, actually:
https://gen.medium.com/the-tara-reade-saga-is-a-failure-of-journalism-6c1e2e67876

Tara Reade's Landlords Are Irrelevant

Since 2007, Jezebel has been the Internet's most treasured source for everything celebrities, sex, and politics...with teeth.

www.jezebel.com

(I found at least one other article saying similar things, but the language was too spicy for this forum)

Click to expand...

I was referring to people on here... if you search her name, you'll see no shortage of Biden supporters critiquing Reade's track-record/story with the same critiques conservatives have made about Carroll.

ThatRobGuy said:

the details surrounding this case are very unique to this case.

Click to expand...

Your complaints, however, are not.

ThatRobGuy said:

That notion, in an of itself, is implying that justice for the actual incident isn't the primary motivator.

Click to expand...

Kind of hard to claim any motivation for justice if the statute of limitations has expired. 10 years after a bar fight, there's absolutely nothing that you could sue or pursue prosecution over. I checked - the statute of limitations in Maine for felony assault is 6 years (3 years for a misdemeanor). Civil suits for assault must be filed within two years of the incident.

As I said, I was laying aside the obvious differences between the two scenarios.

DoJ launches harassment campaign againt rape victim, on behalf of her rapist.

Gene2memE said:

DoJ launches harassment campaign againt rape victim, on behalf of her rapist.

Click to expand...

...who is also their boss.

"Bureau of Justice Statistics and U.S. Sentencing Commission indicates that total annual federal prosecutions and convictions specifically for perjury are relatively rare, generally numbering in the low hundreds nationwide" google ai.

So I asked if Jean Carrol is an aberration?

"Yes, the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll is highly unusual and breaks from standard federal prosecutorial practices in several major ways.

I saw this today too. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/28/us/politics/cftc-gemini-winklevoss-lawsuit.html
Here we have a Federal agency that settled a case with Gemini (A crypto firm) for 5 million dollars asking a Federal Judge to vacate the settlement order. Usually when you win money you take it.
This involves Trump too because there are several conflicts of interest. The Winklevoss twins whose company settled, also (1) gave millions to PAC's associated with Trump. (2) Are investors in starting a club in D.C. that charges 500k to join along with Trump (3) Also, has investment ties to some of Trump's sons in another crypto firm.

So thanks taxpayers for forgiving a hard won 5 million settlement so Trump's friends can get a pass on this. I am sure the Federal judge and former prosecutors for this case bugled it so bad that Trump had to step up and set it right.

ThatRobGuy said:

In these cases, I don't think the point of contention is the "what", but rather the "when"

Time will tell if there's grounds for perjury in this instance.

Click to expand...

This is not about whether she lied about the assault. That has been decided. Trump was found to have raped her. It's about a technicality as regards someone paying her legal fees. And that has already been decided as well. The claim was thrown out. Now they are tying again.

ThatRobGuy said:

...he's the kind of person who had no problems "getting handsy".

Click to expand...

'Handsy'? Are you...kidding me? (and I was most definitely tempted to insert something instead of elliposes there). You do know what he did? If it happened to your daughter, do you pass it off as someone just getting 'handsy'.

Good grief, man.

Richard T said:

"Bureau of Justice Statistics and U.S. Sentencing Commission indicates that total annual federal prosecutions and convictions specifically for perjury are relatively rare, generally numbering in the low hundreds nationwide" google ai.

So I asked if Jean Carrol is an aberration?

"Yes, the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll is highly unusual and breaks from standard federal prosecutorial practices in several major ways.

I saw this today too. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/28/us/politics/cftc-gemini-winklevoss-lawsuit.html
Here we have a Federal agency that settled a case with Gemini (A crypto firm) for 5 million dollars asking a Federal Judge to vacate the settlement order. Usually when you win money you take it.
This involves Trump too because there are several conflicts of interest. The Winklevoss twins whose company settled, also (1) gave millions to PAC's associated with Trump. (2) Are investors in starting a club in D.C. that charges 500k to join along with Trump (3) Also, has investment ties to some of Trump's sons in another crypto firm.

So thanks taxpayers for forgiving a hard won 5 million settlement so Trump's friends can get a pass on this. I am sure the Federal judge and former prosecutors for this case bugled it so bad that Trump had to step up and set it right.

Click to expand...

Expecting norms to be followed at this point might be a bit Pollyanna-ish?

Bradskii said:

This is not about whether she lied about the assault. That has been decided. Trump was found to have raped her. It's about a technicality as regards someone paying her legal fees. And that has already been decided as well. The claim was thrown out. Now they are tying again.

'Handsy'? Are you...kidding me? (and I was most definitely tempted to insert something instead of elliposes there). You do know what he did? If it happened to your daughter, do you pass it off as someone just getting 'handsy'.

Good grief, man.

Click to expand...

Okay, fine, let's call it full blown sexual assault then...

Why wait until the time someone's running for office or about to get elected (and when a new book is about to be released) to bring it to the forefront?

Why not within a shorter timeframe.

The "if it happened to your daughter" bit...

If I had a daughter, and it happened, we'd be going directly to the police station to press charges, and not camping on the information until years down the road when a person is running for office.

RocksInMyHead said:

Your complaints, however, are not.

Click to expand...

Yes they are...

My "complaint" (which wasn't a complaint, just an acknowledgement of it being okay to point things out as fishy)... centered around aspects that wouldn't apply to 99.9% of sexual assault cases.

The fact that she camped on that information for years and years, and "dropped the bombshell" against a contentious candidate in the lead up to an election via a bestseller book release, and then used his response to the book release as the basis to sue him for battery and defamation.

That is most certainly unique to that one particular case.

"She may have been leveraging a past ordeal to increase visibility for her new book, and there may be political motivations behind the timing of her bringing this all to the forefront" is a very unique set of circumstances.



Quick question:

If a person was sexually assaulted, and the aforementioned chain of events occurred...


If they're writing a book in which they describe the civil trial as "comedy gold", and spends part of the time making fun of Trump's lawyer's outfits, and then loads it up with a bunch of boiler plate progressive talking points about other issues.

...is that a person seeking any sort of justice for the thing that actually happened to them? Or is that a person who was happy to be able to use their own victimization for a political takedown?



Because the subject is sensitive, I think people forget that (or avoid talking about the fact that) even some victims can have a degree of sociopathy that creates the inclination for one to exploit their victimization for ulterior motives.

Personal Injury and Defamation Law are prime cases of that, those are areas of law where the lawyers are staying in business from people who may have been legitimately victimized, but are looking for a way to segue that into some sort of personal gain.


Her earlier comments she made were interesting as well:

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll says she waited more than two decades to accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault because she didn't want to boost his chances of winning the 2016 U.S. presidential race.


So, in your estimation, is a person who says "well, if I release it in the lead up to 2016 amid all of the other accusations, it may actually help him win, so I'll wait until the lead up to 2020 to drop the bombshell" (after already camping on it for 20 years), is that a person who's more interested in what happened to them, or a person who's more interested in political outcomes?

ThatRobGuy said:

Yes they are...

My "complaint" (which wasn't a complaint, just an acknowledgement of it being okay to point things out as fishy)... centered around aspects that wouldn't apply to 99.9% of sexual assault cases.

The fact that she camped on that information for years and years, and "dropped the bombshell" against a contentious candidate in the lead up to an election via a bestseller book release, and then used his response to the book release as the basis to sue him for battery and defamation.

Click to expand...

"Why didn't she come forward [when it happened/earlier/at a more convenient time]?" is a complaint thrown around in 99.9% of sexual assault cases that aren't brought immediately after the assault.

ThatRobGuy said:

So, in your estimation, is a person who says "well, if I release it in the lead up to 2016 amid all of the other accusations, it may actually help him win, so I'll wait until the lead up to 2020 to drop the bombshell" (after already camping on it for 20 years), is that a person who's more interested in what happened to them, or a person who's more interested in political outcomes?

Click to expand...

I don't really care whether or not a person is "more interested in political outcomes" when they make allegations about someone. The only relevant question is whether or not they're telling the truth.

Gene2memE said:

DoJ launches harassment campaign againt rape victim, on behalf of her rapist.

Click to expand...

durangodawood said:

...who is also their boss.

Click to expand...

This is rank corruption and presidential overreach.

And as per usual, the sexual assault becomes more about the victim than about the perpetrator.

RocksInMyHead said:

"Why didn't she come forward [when it happened/earlier/at a more convenient time]?" is a complaint thrown around in 99.9% of sexual assault cases that aren't brought immediately after the assault.

Click to expand...

I think we should all be able to acknowledge there's a difference between:

"Didn't report it for 3 years, because they were emotionally scarred to the degree where they couldn't even bring themselves to discuss it"
vs.
"Didn't report it for 20 years, and specifically (by their own words) waiting on a time that's both politically expedient and aligning with a book release" -- and then releasing a follow-up book that almost makes a mockery of the whole process.

Perhaps I just haven't been exposed to a lot of sexual assault court cases, but is publishing a work referring to it as "comedy gold", and making fun of how the alleged attacker's lawyer was dressed, and aggrandizing their court win as a "win for democracy" a normal thing for those types of cases?

RocksInMyHead said:

I don't really care whether or not a person is "more interested in political outcomes" when they make allegations about someone. The only relevant question is whether or not they're telling the truth.

Click to expand...

So you're okay with exploiting victimization status for ulterior motives then?

For instance if my neighbor assaulted me and I couldn't be bothered to report it for years and years, and it was only after I found he was about to land a new job where he'd either be my new boss or be making more money for me, I decide to swoop in and present the information to "knock him down a few pegs", you're saying that type of motivation doesn't matter as along as the assault actually occurred?

ThatRobGuy said:

I think we should all be able to acknowledge there's a difference between:

"Didn't report it for 3 years, because they were emotionally scarred to the degree where they couldn't even bring themselves to discuss it"
vs.
"Didn't report it for 20 years, and specifically (by their own words) waiting on a time that's both politically expedient and aligning with a book release" -- and then releasing a follow-up book that almost makes a mockery of the whole process.

Click to expand...

Sure there is - about 17 years.

ThatRobGuy said:

Perhaps I just haven't been exposed to a lot of sexual assault court cases, but is publishing a work referring to it as "comedy gold", and making fun of how the alleged attacker's lawyer was dressed, and aggrandizing their court win as a "win for democracy" a normal thing for those types of cases?

Click to expand...

Humor is a common way that humans deal with trauma.

ThatRobGuy said:

So you're okay with exploiting victimization status for ulterior motives then?

For instance if my neighbor assaulted me and I couldn't be bothered to report it for years and years, and it was only after I found he was about to land a new job where he'd either be my new boss or be making more money for me, I decide to swoop in and present the information to "knock him down a few pegs", you're saying that type of motivation doesn't matter as along as the assault actually occurred?

Click to expand...

Yes. People are free to do what they wish with that information, but I would never question your right to share it.

ThatRobGuy said:

Okay, fine, let's call it full blown sexual assault then...

Click to expand...

Gee, there's no need to go overboard. Give the guy a break why don't you.

ThatRobGuy said:

If I had a daughter, and it happened, we'd be going directly to the police station to press charges, and not camping on the information until years down the road when a person is running for office.

Click to expand...

And complain that some guy got handy with her? In actuality, the decision as to whether you tell the police will not be yours. In fact, the decision as to whether you are told will not be yours.

From here: Google Search

'According to national statistics on sexual assault : an estimated 8% of women who experienced sexual assault said the police were contacted about the most recent incident, either by themselves or others. the majority (92%) of women who experienced sexual assault did not report the incident to the police.'

Do you know why? Even the terms that you use would indicate that you don't.