President Donald Trump's Justice Department probe into E. Jean Carroll has one unmistakable purpose — and it isn't a successful prosecution, according to a former U.S. attorney quoted in a new Slate analysis.
Writing in Slate, journalist Shirin Ali cited former U.S. attorney for Alabama Joyce Vance, who argued the reported investigation into the 82-year-old writer is a revenge tactic designed "to intimidate the woman who stands to collect an enormous sum from the president once the appeals in these matters are complete."
Carroll won a $5 million sexual abuse verdict against Trump in 2023, followed by an $83 million defamation award. Trump's appeals have stalled at the Supreme Court, which has rescheduled the case 11 times since being fully briefed in late January.
Trump's DOJ opened a criminal investigation tied to legal funding Carroll received from Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman, according to reports. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois later flatly denied it opened such an investigation, calling any claim to the contrary "categorically false."
The legal premise also appears flimsy.
An appeals court already ruled there was no evidence that Carroll was personally involved in securing Hoffman's funding before her 2022 deposition. Ali called the legal premise "thin gruel," and a former SDNY prosecutor called the potential case a "legal non-starter."
DOJ insiders are reportedly cringing at the move. Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade told Vox that filing charges to shame someone without supporting evidence is "an abuse of the Justice Department's power."
