QP!
Verified User
The problem you have is that both Trump and Blanche HAVE disclosed those details.
Oh and also that you are stupid.
“DOJ opens investigation into E. Jean Carroll”
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
Oh and also that you are stupid.
Your response contains several clear factual errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations that undermine its credibility. It does not engage with the core of the original post; the unprecedented sequence of legislative, funding, judicial, and procedural steps, but instead relies on a jumbled timeline, ad hominem attacks ("cult members," "out of touch with reality"), and selective framing.
Here is a point-by-point authoritative breakdown based on court records, jury verdicts, and contemporaneous reporting.
1. Your response completely botches the timeline, suits, and damage awards.
Your response claims:
- Carroll "first filed suit in 2019 for defamation. (She won that suit and was awarded $83 million.)"
- Then, after the May 2022 Adult Survivors Act (ASA), she filed "under that as well along with another defamation suit" and was "awarded roughly $2 million for the assault and $3 million for the defamation."
This is inverted and wrong.
- Carroll I (the 2019 defamation suit, over Trump's initial denials): Tried in January 2024. Jury awarded $83.3 million ($18.3 million compensatory + $65 million punitive) solely for defamation. No new assault findings; the jury was bound by the prior verdict via collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Trump was barred from relitigating whether the underlying sexual abuse occurred.
- Carroll II (filed November 24, 2022—literally minutes after the ASA's one-year lookback window opened): Battery (sexual abuse/rape claim) under the ASA + additional defamation (for Trump's 2022 statements). Tried April–May 2023. Jury awarded $5 million total for sexual abuse + the 2022 defamation. (Sources do not break it as "~$2M assault + $3M defamation"; your response's numbers are approximate at best and wrongly attributed.)
Carroll had publicly announced her intent to file under it months earlier and was the first to do so the moment it took effect.
My original post's description of this as a "retroactive temporary law" tailored for "decades-old accusations that could not be dated, located, or defended with alibis" is accurate. Your response's "it's so funny... don't understand how time works" is simply false on the sequence.
2. Your response ignores the political funding, secrecy, and sealing of records. My original post's strongest point ( Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder and major Democrat funder secretly routing millions through his nonprofit, American Future Republic, to cover Carroll's legal costs via her firm Kaplan Hecker & Fink), is entirely unaddressed.
- Carroll's 2022 deposition (in Carroll I) stated no third-party funding.
- Disclosure only came in April 2023 (during Carroll II discovery), after Trump's team pressed.
- Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (Clinton appointee) sealed the funding records at Carroll's request; the jury never heard about Hoffman's public anti-Trump statements or the arrangement.
3. Jury verdict on rape vs. sexual abuse: Your response is half-right but dodges the judge's post-hoc ruling.
- Correct: The Carroll II jury explicitly checked "no" on the verdict form for rape under New York's statutory definition at the time (forcible penile penetration only) and "yes" on sexual abuse/forcible touching (digital penetration).
- Judge Kaplan later ruled (post-verdict and in dismissing counterclaims) that this still proved "rape" under the common definition (non-consensual penetration), stating the verdict did not mean Carroll failed to prove rape "as many people commonly understand the word." New York expanded its rape statute in 2024 partly because of this case.
Your response's claim that rejecting statutory rape "precludes" nothing under the common definition is fair, but it ignores why this distinction mattered: the verdict form used the narrow legal term, and the judge's clarification came after the fact.
Your response "Do you think that because you are in a cult?" is not an argument.
4. Testimony, DNA, and the second jury: Partial truths with key omissions
- Testimony: Trump gave a videotaped deposition (played for the Carroll II jury). He did not testify live in the 2023 trial. In the 2024 Carroll I defamation trial, he briefly took the stand (under 3 minutes) but was heavily restricted by the judge due to collateral estoppel; he could not contest the "facts" already found in Carroll II. Your response's blanket "He refused to testify" is misleading.
- DNA: Carroll requested a sample in 2020 (dress evidence). Trump refused for years. His late 2023 conditional offer (just before trial) was rejected by Judge Kaplan as an untimely delay tactic. (Note: The dress had no sperm; DNA would not have been conclusive anyway.) The response is accurate that he did not provide one, but overstates its centrality.
- Second jury: The $83.3M jury did not re-find the abuse facts or award anything for "rape." They applied issue preclusion and focused only on defamation damages from the 2019 statements. Trump was legally barred from arguing the core denial before them. Your responses' "once a jury finds a fact... it is considered true by the courts" is correct on the law; but that is precisely the "no precedent" procedural stacking the original post highlights.
You dodged the coordinated legislative timing, undisclosed Hoffman funding (now under DOJ scrutiny), record-sealing by a Clinton-appointed judge, and the use of preclusion to prevent Trump from defending the underlying facts before the damages jury.
These steps produced a cumulative result no prior U.S. civil case matches, exactly as I stated.
Your silly "cult" rhetoric does not change the documented sequence. My original post's critique of the process holds; your response rebuts a strawman version of it.
Very few if any give this any credibility. They may charge her, but if she is saying she did not remember correctly, that is not a crime.
Top federal prosecutor in Chicago denies investigation into E. Jean Carroll, disputing media reports
The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denies that his office has opened an investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who said Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a New York department store 30 years ago.apnews.com
Is there anyone out there who dared criticize or spoke out against Trump that hasn’t been sued, “investigated” or indicted? The DOJ ought to just move to MaraLago and drop the facade
The Department of Justice’s mission statement says, “The mission of the Department of Justice is to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights,” to which they ought to add, “and to investigate, indite, and prosecute anyone Trump tells us to as our top priority
One of the first steps of an autocrat is to silence his critics
From the article:
The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denied Thursday evening that his office had opened an investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who has said Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a New York department store 30 years ago, hours after multiple news organizations reported that the Justice Department was investigating whether she had lied during the course of civil litigation against Trump.
The Associated Press and other news organizations, citing anonymous sources, reported that the federal prosecutors’ office in Chicago had opened an investigation into Carroll examining possible perjury allegations.
But Andrew Boutros, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, issued a statement roughly 24 hours after the first report was published saying that his office “has not opened — and has never opened — a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll.
Top federal prosecutor in Chicago denies investigation into E. Jean Carroll, disputing media reports
The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denies that his office has opened an investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who said Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a New York department store 30 years ago.
apnews.com
Yup.
What the jury found...
"BECAUSE WE CANNOT PROVE IF IT WAS PENILE OR FINGER FORCED PENETRATION AND A RULING OF RAPE REQUIRES THAT PROOF, INSTEAD WE ARE RULING SEXUAL ASSAULT, WHICH DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE PENILE (RAPE) PENTRATION BUT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY FIND IT."
How do magat cultists respond to the above.
'ZOMG Trump won as he was only found to have forcibly penetrate E Jean with his finger and not necessarily his penis. What a win'
That ^^^ is what the magat cult defines as a win for Trump.
This is a fabricated "jury explanation" that does not exist in the record.
It misrepresents the actual verdict form, the jury instructions, Carroll's own testimony, and Judge Kaplan's post-trial rulings.
No such reasoning, to wit: "BECAUSE WE CANNOT PROVE IF IT WAS PENILE OR FINGER... WHICH DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE PENILE (RAPE) PENTRATION BUT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY FIND IT", appears anywhere in the public court documents, verdict sheet, jury notes, or any juror's statements.
Juries answer yes/no to specific questions; they do not write explanatory paragraphs. This is pure invention.
1. What the verdict form actually said (public record)The Carroll II verdict form (May 9, 2023, Dkt. 174) had three separate, sequential questions on the sexual battery claim, using the exact statutory definitions Judge Kaplan gave the jury:
- Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?
→ NO
(NY Penal Law definition at the time: forcible penile-vaginal penetration.) - Did Ms. Carroll prove... that Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll?
→ YES
(Forcible sexual contact, including digital penetration.) - (Only reached if "no" to #2) Did he forcibly touch her? (Not reached.)
The jury was not asked to weigh "penile vs. finger" as a single blurry category or to say "we can't prove which but it might have been penile."
They were instructed on mutually exclusive legal elements and answered no to rape, yes to sexual abuse.
2. Carroll's own testimony was explicit about digital penetrationCarroll testified under oath that Trump "yanked down her tights and shoved a finger up her vagina" and that she could "still feel his curved finger" years later. She also alleged penile penetration, but the jury rejected that specific element. Appellate courts later noted the jury "implicitly found that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's vagina with his fingers."
There was no ambiguity or "we can't tell" in the evidence presented to the jury.3. Judge Kaplan himself confirmed the jury's finding was digital penetration—not "maybe penile".
In his post-trial rulings (and again in 2023 when denying a new trial), Kaplan wrote explicitly: "[T]he jury implicitly found that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's vagina with his fingers."
He then added his own gloss: Even though the jury said "no" to statutory rape, the digital penetration finding still equals "rape" under the common, everyday definition of the word.
That is a judge's post-hoc interpretation, not anything the jury wrote or implied. The new poster's quote inverts this reality.
4. The "ZOMG only finger = win" sarcasm is a strawman. No one argues the sexual-abuse finding was a "win" for Trump in the sense of exoneration. The truth is narrower and factual:
- The jury explicitly rejected the rape allegation Carroll made and the law defined.
- The judge later relabeled the digital finding as "rape" anyway for public and collateral-estoppel purposes.
- That relabeled finding was then locked in via issue preclusion, barring Trump from contesting the underlying facts before the second ($83.3 million) jury.
- This sequence; retroactive law + undisclosed donor funding + sealed records + judicial redefinition; is unprecedented in U.S. civil litigation.
QP's made-up jury rationale collapses under the actual verdict form, testimony, and Kaplan's own words.
It is not "what the jury found"; it is what someone wishes the jury had said to avoid acknowledging the explicit "no" on rape.
The jury followed the law and instructions they were given.
The later judicial reinterpretation and procedural stacking are separate issues.
QP!
Verified User
yup.
The ability to get a verdict on something like this is near zero.
There are two clear NECESSARY elements of this crime the DoJ has no chance to prove to any level, let alone beyond any reasonable doubt and those are:
- 'Intent'. They would have to prove she had the intent to lie and simply did not make a mistake or not properly understand the question. To speak to the 'intent' the DoJ would have to say 'we know what was in her mind' and get a jury to believe them to that high standard where the jury said 'we have no doubt'.
- "materiality."
For a false statement to be considered criminal perjury, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was material to the proceeding. Meaning the 'false statement must be found to have impacted the case'
Both the trial judge and the Appellate court considered and ruled on that question specifically saying there was no materiality and the statements, even if wrong, had no impact on the case or its determination.
So what is left to investigate? We KNOW she said it and then had her lawyer retract it. Intent CANNOT be proved by the DoJ. Two courts have already ruled, even if true and even if you could prove intent, there is ZERO materiality to the case and thus no ability to convict.
You must be in a cult because you really are out of touch with reality.
Trump is supposed to pay E Jean Carroll $86 million for repeatedly defaming her. When did anyone change the law so she could win a defamation lawsuit?
Let's see if you can tell us how this lawsuit was outside the statute of limitations.
E Jean Carroll wrote an article saying Trump raped her that was published June 21, 2019.
Trump then denied that it happened and called her crazy.
E Jean Carroll filed her defamation lawsuit in November of 2019.
Perhaps you can tell us how your cult thinks that June to November of 2019 is longer than five years.
Not a criminal investigation, yet.From the article:
The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denied Thursday evening that his office had opened an investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who has said Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a New York department store 30 years ago, hours after multiple news organizations reported that the Justice Department was investigating whether she had lied during the course of civil litigation against Trump.
The Associated Press and other news organizations, citing anonymous sources, reported that the federal prosecutors’ office in Chicago had opened an investigation into Carroll examining possible perjury allegations.
But Andrew Boutros, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, issued a statement roughly 24 hours after the first report was published saying that his office “has not opened — and has never opened — a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll.
Top federal prosecutor in Chicago denies investigation into E. Jean Carroll, disputing media reports
The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denies that his office has opened an investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who said Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a New York department store 30 years ago.
Not a "criminal investigation".
The media lied.
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Andrew Boutros publicly denied his office opened any criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, calling reports that it had “categorically false.”
US prosecutor denies launching criminal investigation into E Jean Carroll
The top federal prosecutor in Chicago has denied media reports that his office opened an investigation into E Jean Carroll.
www.bbc.com
No, he's not, according to the latest reports. Looks like the "anonymous sources" were lying.
US prosecutor denies launching criminal investigation into E Jean Carroll
The top federal prosecutor in Chicago has denied media reports that his office opened an investigation into E Jean Carroll.
www.bbc.com
Facts found by a jury are not relitigated. If this was the only lawsuit, the jury would have still have to decided that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll for the defamation to occur. The only selective framing seems to be you by claiming that 2019 occurs after 2022. Statute of limitations is only applicable when the suit is filed not when it goes to trial. the suit was filed in 2019 after the 2019 defamation.
The jury verdict sheet breaks it down. Why don't you bother to actually read that? they jury found Trump defamed her and awarded $1 million for damages, $1.7 million for reputation repair and $280k for punitive damages.
You are pretending the second lawsuit which went to court first was the first lawsuit.
Tell us how the lawsuit filed in 2019 was filed after the 2022 law was passed. You are the one trying to frame things as if the 2019 lawsuit didn't exist.
This is an interesting argument since it would allow Peter Theil to be investigated for paying for lawsuits. Who pays for lawyers has no bearing on the facts of a case in court. Particularly when the person complaining is very rich and has more than adequate defense lawyers to argue the facts of the case.
You clearly have never read the judge's ruling on calling what Trump did rape. The judge didn't rule that the jury's finding proved rape. The judge rules that the actions by Trump presented to the jury could be considered rape under the common usage of that term. The jury was instructed that if they believed that Trump used his fingers to penetrate Carroll then they should answer yes to the sexual abuse question. They answered yes. Digital penetration is commonly known as rape. It is rape under the UCMJ. It is rape under federal law.
Failure to read the judge's ruling on your part doesn't make your fantasies true.
When you argue something that never happened is wrong, you start to look like you are in a cult.
It is an observation. Your inability to stick to facts is a problem that continues.
When did I state the DNA sample was central? Making shit up so you can argue against it is a logical fallacy on your part.
LOL. I made no errors since your list here repeats exactly what I said.
2019 is not 2022 no matter how many times you demand that we accept that it is. It seems you don't like the law and the way it restricts court arguments to facts.
I am still waiting for you to tell me how 2019 occurs before 2022.
Someone is lying.The media lied.
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Andrew Boutros publicly denied his office opened any criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, calling reports that it had “categorically false.”
US prosecutor denies launching criminal investigation into E Jean Carroll
The top federal prosecutor in Chicago has denied media reports that his office opened an investigation into E Jean Carroll.
It appears so.
Yakuda
Verified User
The stupi bitch cant even remember what year this supposed rape took place. The laws were changed so she could pull this stunt and the gold digging whore won. She should eat shit before she gets a dollar
Relax. There is no investigation. The usual "anonymous sources" were either imaginary or lying.