DOJ probing outside funding E. Jean Carroll received for Trump civil lawsuits
DOJ is probing a nonprofit run by billionaire Reid Hoffman that funded a portion of E. Jean Carroll's civil litigation against President Trump, several sources said.

The Department of Justice is investigating the nonprofit of billionaire Reid Hoffman, which made contributions that were partially used for E. Jean Carroll's legal expenses during her civil lawsuit against President Trump, a source familiar tells Axios.Why it matters: The investigation raises concerns about a pattern of retaliation against Trump critics while testing the independence of DOJ officials. Hoffman, a LinkedIn co-founder, has donated millions to Democratic causes and the party over the years and is a longtime Trump critic. The president previously alleged Hoffman is a funder of "radical left" groups that promote political violence.What they're saying: "The investigation is more focused on Reid Hoffman's nonprofit," American Future Republic, than Carroll herself, a source familiar with the DOJ's operations tells Axios."It's related to E. Jean Carroll and her deposition, but she is not the subject of the investigation." "The investigation is ongoing... but as of right now, it would be inaccurate to say that she is being investigated."The White House referred Axios to the DOJ for comment. The DOJ and Carroll's legal team declined to comment. Hoffman did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.Flashback: Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault at a Manhattan department store in the 1990s, filing a civil suit against him. Trump was initially found liable for sexual abuse and defamation and fined $5 million.Trump has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, but the court has not decided if it will hear the case. Context: Carroll was previously questioned about a 2022 deposition in which she said she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, but her attorneys later said that Hoffman's nonprofit covered some of her legal expenses.Dmitri Mehlhorn, then a philanthropic adviser for Hoffman, said in a 2017 statement that the nonprofit made a donation to the Kaplan Hecker & Fink law firm for a different public interest lawsuit. But when the firm took up Carroll's case in 2020, her lawyer asked if the grant money could be used for the suit against Trump. "We had no prior knowledge at the time of the original grant that our funding would go to support her case in particular," Mehlhorn said, according to the New York Times.Yes, but: Trump argued in court that Carroll had committed perjury. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his position. The court found that "there was no evidence to suggest that Ms. Carroll was personally involved in securing the funding, interacted with the funder," or had knowledge of where the money came from prior to being deposed in October 2022. Go deeper: Red-meat retribution: Trump escalates campaign against MAGA foes
DOJ is probing a nonprofit run by billionaire Reid Hoffman that funded a portion of E. Jean Carroll's civil litigation against President Trump, several sources said.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH RIGHT NOW! The post Watch Live: The WAR Zone Podcast With Wayne Allyn Root Presented by The Gateway Pundit-Newsom Announces Plan to Tax 100% of Trump DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund Payouts to California Residents appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed lawsuits Thursday against four states for refusing to issue “undercover” license plates to federal immigration officers. The lawsuits against Maine, Washington, Oregon and Massachusetts follow a letter sent from the DOJ earlier this month, urging all four jurisdictions to issue confidential plates to federal agents. “By denying undercover license…
The Justice Department is intensifying efforts to identify anonymous social media users who have criticized government deportation policies, issuing grand jury subpoenas to Reddit and X demanding names, addresses, and banking information.The US Attorney's Office for Washington under Jeanine Pirro has subpoenaed the platforms as part of criminal investigations targeting at least two anonymous posters who have criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, reported Bloomberg.“They started with an administrative summons, which does not indicate a criminal investigation, and then progressed to the grand jury subpoena, which does,” said Lauren Regan, an attorney representing a Reddit user who posted criticism of ICE. "[That] is further proof that this is a bad faith attempt to unmask the user.”The targeted users learned of the subpoenas only after being notified by the companies themselves and subsequently hired attorneys to challenge the government demands.Neither the Justice Department nor the users have been informed what specific crimes are allegedly being investigated, but defense attorneys suspect the investigations may relate to allegations of revealing a federal officer's location data or making perceived threats, but they argue their clients committed no crimes. They contend that even if no charges are ultimately filed, the government's effort to unmask dissenters amounts to intimidation designed to suppress protected free speech.Court records show the administration initially pursued administrative summonses — which bypass judicial review — but withdrew them after legal challenges. The government then escalated to grand jury subpoenas, which carry the weight of criminal investigations and are far more difficult to challenge.According to former federal prosecutor Bonnie Greenberg, those challenging such subpoenas face an extremely heavy burden, saying that in her 37-year career as an assistant U.S. attorney, only one person attempted to quash a grand jury subpoena, and the judge ruled against them.The cases involve relatively innocuous posts. One user posted simply "expletive ICE," while another made what his attorney describes as a sarcastic remark on X that included an address found elsewhere on social media. Defense attorneys note the posts contain no indication of violent intent.Civil liberties advocates warn the tactic threatens fundamental protections for anonymous speech. First Amendment Coalition Executive Director David Snyder pointed to The Federalist Papers, which founding fathers published under pseudonyms to protect themselves from government retaliation while shaping the nation's founding principles.Both sets of lawyers have filed motions to quash the subpoenas in federal court, with cases pending before U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg.Reddit has stated it vigorously defends user anonymity and routinely objects to overbroad requests threatening civil rights, but the outcome will likely have significant implications for online speech protections in the current political climate.
Legal experts Katie Phang, Norm Eisen and Adam Klasfeld appeared on Thursday for a discussion about the new taxpayer-funded lawsuit against foe E. Jean Carroll by President Donald Trump's Justice Department. Trump, who lost two lawsuits for defamation, was accused of sexual assault by Carroll, and when Trump spoke out against her, she sued. Two juries awarded her $88 million and declared him liable for defamation while also agreeing that he committed an act of sexual abuse. The DOJ now claims that she lied under oath when she was asked whether someone was funding her legal fees. In reality, Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman was footing some of the costs, though it's unclear whether she knew that when she was asked. Carroll's lawyer later told the judge that Hoffman was funding some of the legal expenses. The DOJ says she lied under oath. In the latest conversation with "The Contrarian," Klasfeld called it ironic because there were acts of perjury on Trump's part. "I was in federal court when the deposition of Donald Trump was unspooled and he famously, and one might say wretchedly, claimed she's not my type," he recalled. Trump claimed to the lawyers that he could not have sexually assaulted Carroll because she wasn't attractive enough. "That was his defense to sexual abuse. She's not my type," Klasfeld continued. "And in this deposition, he was shown a picture that he was not aware included E. Jean Carroll, pointed to that picture, and confused her with Marla Maples. So clearly, she was his type. He confused her with his second wife."Eisen began laughing. "What an a——." "And so that was just one example of the demonstrable lies that led a unanimous federal jury to find him liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll," continued Klasfeld. "And what is inspiring this new leg of the retaliation tour, in the very district where they just failed to prosecute six local activists and politicians known as the Broadview Six. They were supposed to be on trial right now, but evidence of shocking grand jury misconduct came to light."Klasfeld said it was the "perfect place" for the DOJ to pick a jurisdiction in which to "persecute" Carroll. Phang said that she wasn't surprised because FBI Director Kash Patel and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche spent a year investigating seashells on the beach in North Carolina. "But here's the thing: you notice how they're not going after her about the substantive testimony she provided about the sexual assault that she was victimized by Trump, right?" Phang added. "They're not going after that. They're not going after the underlying facts of what she has alleged happened to her at the hands of Donald Trump. That is the tell."Instead, Trump is going after a Reid Hoffman-related question, claiming it was perjury. But they're not disputing the facts of the case and the jury's verdict.Coffee with the Contrarians, with Norman Eisen and Katie Phang by All Rise NewsA recording from Adam Klasfeld and Norman Eisen's live videoRead on Substack
'Betraying the weakness of its criticism, the dissent leans on a source that offers no support,' Justice Barrett wrote.
According to two sources, the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into whether E. Jean Carroll committed perjury during her lawsuits tied to her sexual abuse allegations against President Donald Trump. NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell reports on the investigations against the president's rivals.
Police were warned to approach the Supreme Court justice's home with the understanding that this could be a false alarm, according to independent D.C. journalist Andrew Leyden.