DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus DOJ launches criminal probe into E. Jean Carroll: Sources

Acting AG Todd Blanche recused himself from the investigation, sources said.

The Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle magazine columnist who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The investigation is allegedly centered around whether Carroll committed perjury during her civil lawsuits against President Trump, after which she was awarded a $5 million judgment, the sources said.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche recused himself from the investigation, given his past representation of Trump in the matter, the sources said.

CNN first reported news of the investigation, which sources said is being led by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Andrew Boutros.

The probe is the latest among a series of investigations launched by the DOJ into perceived foes of Trump, a number of which have faced significant obstacles in the courts and before grand juries.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the investigation to ABC News. Attorneys for Carroll also declined comment.

Trump was found liable in two civil lawsuits that resulted in judgments totaling nearly $90 million for sexually abusing Carroll in a department store dressing room in the 1990s and defaming her when he denied her claims.

He was found liable in 2023 of sexually abusing Carroll and was also found liable in 2024 in a separate but related defamation case involving Carroll.

Trump earlier this month asked a federal appeals court in New York to pause its ruling rejecting his challenge to her defamation lawsuit so he could pursue an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The request came after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear Trump's claim of immunity and his attempt to substitute the United States as a defendant in the case.

https://abcnews.com/US/doj-launches-criminal-probe-jean-carroll-sources/story?id=133367551

So let's review shall we?

Blanche is the head of the DOJ.

Blanche represented trump in the lawsuit against Carl which he lost.

Trump has tried consistently tried to get this case overturned and failed to do so.

So now the department ran by Blanche, trump's personal attorney on one of these two cases is pursuing criminal charges against the woman a jury determined was trump's victim in not just one but two lawsuits.

Repulsive

TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE DEMS. OR ANYTHING BUT TRUMP AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND HOW IT'S IS OBSEVABLE FACT THAT THE DOJ IS ACTING LIKE SOMETHING RUN BY AN AUTOCRACY ... QUICK, LET'S DEFLECT THE CONVERSATION !!! GIVE ME SOME HYPOTHETICALS - GIVE ME SOME "YOU CAN'T PROVE THIS IS NOT A LEGIT INVESTIGATION" ....

Again - hopefully purple not required.

Of course we should be talking about the Dems! After all it's the Dems who are in control of the White House, the Senate, the House, the EPA, the CDC, the department of education on the DOJ. Why should we be talking about anyone else but the dems!?

I used purple just in case. You never know with this crowd. No need to open that door.

...the pre-emptive purple posse strikes again....

I had to use "per-emptive purple" or it would have been labeled as a lie by you. I'm the only one that used purple. You do realize that a posse consists of more than one person, correct? Or did you realize that and post a lie?

He used all caps and asked if he should have used purple and you said yes. (I'm getting the gist across if not using your exact words.) My post was a joke, which according to you is a reasonable thing to post.

If you both hadn't felt the need to argue with something that hadn't happened yet in the thread due to an apparent insatiable need to be arguing at all times whether there is a reason or not, I wouldn't have found it funny.

On the topic, yes, I think the lawsuit is BS.

Technically she may have perjured herself. If she did, it seems it would have been the misdemeanor version as it wasn't really relevant to the case. And if it was a misdemeanor, it seems it should be past the statute of limitations.

This does appear to be hypocritical "lawfare."

So you agree that in fact I'm the only one who used purple. Thanks. That's what they say when trump says something he has to back out of "He was only joking." "He didn't mean what he said." When you have to explain something was a joke......


The "both of us" were in agreement. You do realize that an argument is a disagreement and back and forth between people with opposing views, correct? None of that happened prior to your post claiming people were arguing. The person arguing would be the one who came in with an opposing view. Do you understand who that was or do you need help with that too?

You should quit while you're still only slightly behind.

Lock her up. Perjury is a crime.

She gave her disposition on October 14th 2022. Trump has been president for almost a year and a half. In both May 9, 2023 and January 26, 2024 juries found trump libel for sexual assault. From the very beginning trump has tried to get courts to overturn those judgements and failed every time. In none of that time did anyone pursue criminal charges against her. Now, after trump has failed to get those judgements overturned, somehow this "criminal investigation" comes up. Nobody has seen her disposition because it has remained sealed so all anyone can go by is "what they're being told" is in it.

Look it up.

Aren't you the same guy who posted innocent until proven guilty in Pure Football even after 26 women accused watson of sexual assault? Where did that guy go?

Oh that's right. It has nothing to do with any of that. For you it's all about who it is accusing who.

What exactly was her "disposition"?

Yes, I do not believe liars.

So you have determined that al 26 women who accused watson were liars and so is E. Jean Carol? So somehow in that brain of yours every victim is a liar and watson and trump are the beacons of truth?

On April 17th trump said Iran had agreed to everything including turning over their nuclear material. That was a lie. So I suppose that means you don't believe trump now either?

Oooh, you got me arch. At least I know you're still stocking me even when it's in silence most of the time. At least you learned your lesson.

But at least you just scored your "I'm petty point." Great job!

I'm not "stocking" anyone.

Mmmmm hmmmmm.....

Do you believe a convicted felon?

In the civil lawsuits filed by E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump, he was forced to pay a combined total of $88.3 million in damages across two separate trials:

The 2023 Verdict: A federal jury awarded Carroll $5 million after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.The 2024 Verdict: A separate jury ordered Trump to pay an additional $83.3 million ($18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages) for subsequent defamatory statements he made about her while in office.

I wish I could put him behind stuff on a shelf and forget he's there.

Aw.... Who is the snowflake now?

You, apparently. Can't seem to take a joke after using the wrong homophone.

I had no idea you were homophoneic. Man that must be tough.

If you haven't noticed (and why would you, you don't actually read my posts most of the time any more, or so you claim), I enjoy wordplay.

You do like trying to ascribe other meanings to parts of my name, so I suppose one could frame that as a homophonic issue. However, I'd consider it more of a dealing with a guy making things up issue. It's more tiresome than tough.

I get it. You went after some spelling error to make a grammar police joke. The low hanging fruit of jokes. In turn I had to show you what an actual joke looks like. As such you became triggered. Spinning that now is pretty lame.

I'm pretty sure your "joke" was just bad. I wasn't triggered, I just thought it deserved mockery.

So mockery was your goal and not word play or a joke. Thanks. It's always good to hear you admit you started off with a false premise.

No, I do like wordplay. Your attempt at a joke using wordplay was just bad. So, I made fun of your bad wordplay after the initial truthful statement.

What was your punchline supposed to be?

I have a fear of words sounding like each other? Is that funny to someone out there?

Was it a weird veiled gay joke? ...Still not funny.

In Bulllandia a spelling error equals a word play joke. Deperation has now sunk in.

Trump needs to leave her alone… I hope she sues him again.

Thanks for finally admitting your desperation, even if you can't spell it, either. It has been apparent for awhile.

Word play?

I guess the whole "court of law" argument only counts when it goes your way?

Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records on May 30, 2024, in a New York state court. The case, brought by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, marked the first time a former U.S. president was convicted of felony crimes.

How does that work? DW?

The difference between Deshaun Watson and Donald Trump is drastic. Watson does not have a whole political party of evil people trying to take him down at every turn. Two separate grand juries heard the evidence and decided there was not enough there to go to trial. At that point he is innocent until proven guilty. With Donald Trump there are very evil forces trying to change our political landscape to some global system of socialism. Donald Trump stands against that system, and they try everything they can to bring him down. Is he a saint. No not at all. But he stands up to the globalists, and they try everything they can to take him down because of it. Those kangaroo court cases are chosen strategically to get their desired outcome. I think it is great to see people in the UK stand up and wave their flag. National pride needs to come back and push these global extremists away.

I had no idea that the juries who convicted trump were "evil forces". There you go being judgemental and holier than thou. That's how you label everything and everyone who does not share your views. Which were "innocent until proven guilty". Until it was trump. Then you try to blame "evil people" in some lame conspiracy theory when it was actually a jury who heard the evidence and convicted him.

Another jury found him liable for sexual assault. After reading your post I'm beginning to winder exactly which God you worship.

The grands juries heard evidence on a single case, not all 26.

I would hate to live in the reality you're in.

wow the forces of evil.

An entire political party and those who vote that way?

Talking real evil how about Epstein? Proven as evil.

You are who you run with.

Fact, if trump was not president and Jack Smith took him to court. He would be in prison.

He violated the Constitution. He organized and attempted to stop the transfer of power from an election he lost.

That was proven in court after all appeals.

Then once in power he pardoned convicted criminals who plead guilty.

And yet here you are trying to reconcile law and order as long as it fits you wants.

Epstein was a Democrat!!!

who was his best buddy?

Bill Clinton and many powerful elites.

So all those chummy pictures of donny and Epstein were fake right?

You know weddings etc. So, with his history on tape at beauty pageants grabs. Stormy Daniels.

His conviction of assault. His convictions of fraud and falsification of records on real estate records.

You know continue your worship of scum

And you continue to worship the party of human trafficking, drug trafficking, illegal aliens, crime, baby murder, trannies, etc...

The Clintons (and Democrats in general) don't seem to be the ones suppressing the release of the investigation, though.

They ahd the documents the entire Biden Administration and released 0 pages. Why is that?

Sorry but we don't have Biden Bibles, wear Biden shirts, Biden hats, and have Biden flags. That's what worshiping someone looks like. We also didn't elect a man convicted on 34 felony counts and who a jury found committed sexual assault. Or a man who had to pay off a porn star. A man who is trying to get a slush fund to pay off his thugs who assaulted police officers. And then in turn blame everyone else for his actions.

Nobody supports human trafficking, drug tafficking or crime. If you wish to claim someone supports drug trafficking try addressing how trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández on December 1, 2025. Hernández had been serving a 45-year prison sentence in the U.S. after being convicted of conspiring to import roughly 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.

You have officially boarded the crazy train.

Open borders sir!!! Brings all of that in our Country! So, you are welcoming me! To be a socialist you are already on the crazy train.

So you got nothing then. You can't address anything I posted. You must think FDR was Satan returned to earth.

All of you judgemental, hateful "Christians". You are the type of people that are killing religion. Jesus was our savior who taught kindness and love. Only for people like you to bastardize his message.

"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me."

If I remember correctly, the investigation was formally closed in 2025 after appeals and other stuff was finally closed out.

You have such a warped point of view it is not worth my time.

Your generalizations and comments clearly point to someone who is fed misinformation and only seeks reinforcement of that agenda.

Continue your path of blindly being led.

don't want no short people round here they got no reason

Keep taking that quote out of context. That refers to the individual and not a country. Countries are sovereign. Christianity is not taken from some and give to others. It is for a person to graciously give from their increase to take care of someone of need. Not for a Government to take from who they feel does not deserve it and give it to someone they feel deserves it. That is wrong entirely. Yes, FDR was a horrible person.

That's not what Jesus said. That's what you "feel and believe Jesus meant". What he meant was clear. Those with less should be taken care of. He never said anything about anyone "deciding or judging who deserves it". The stranger should be welcomed. The only one adding context here is you.

Yes FDR wanted working people to make a living wage. He wanted the south and the west to have an electric grid. He no longer wanted the elderly who worked when they were younger to starve when they got old.

Yet another democrat, President Lyndon B. Johnson started Medicare and Medicaid. He signed the Social Security Amendments into law on July 30, 1965. Providing that the poor and elderly could get medical care. He and JFK helped get the Civil Rights act passed so that people of all colors could at least begin to get equal rights.

Men whose objectives closer resembled Jesus than you do were horrible people according to your ilk. That's why people can see through your kind.

According to you. What about murder of children. What does the Bible say about that. Trust me it is not on your side. In the Old Testament God delivered entire nations into Israels hand for sacrificing babies. How about changing his law in reference to marriage that he invented being between 1 man and 1 woman. I know your twisted view of the Word of God twists what it says to fit your reality, but the Word of God cannot be changed. It is the same from Genisis to Revelation. Try reading it straight thru sometime you may have a different understanding than taking 1 line and twisting that lines meaning.

I do not support abortion and therefore have never paid for an abortion or advised anyone to get an abortion. Unlike you I don't care who marries who. That's none of my business. We all have to answer for our own life. I have my own beliefs but unlike you I fully understand I have no right to inflict my religious beliefs on the whole of society. You keep using Old Testament scripture to make a point. Do you eat pork or seafood? Do you keep the Sabbath on Saturday as is commanded? If you're going to break out the Old Testament to claim some kind of right to inflict your religious beliefs on society, use all of it and not just the parts to support your agenda.

And we both now I'm not "taking 1 line and twisting that lines meaning." Jesus said all that accept him will be saved. He did not say to force religion down anyone's throat.

I see you have chosen to ignore my entire post for the most part because it doesn't serve your purposes. I expected as much.

In this nation we are founded on the principal of freedom of religion. That makes us free of any one religion or being forced into the teachings of one religion. There are nations where they use their religion to control women, to force people into following their beliefs and customs and punish people who don't. From my understanding you hate them. Oh that's right, that's because it's not "your religion". But when it comes to "your religion" you want to do the exact same thing here.

And BTW- The books of the bible are not in chronological order.

And is this what you meant by "taking 1 line and twisting that lines meaning."?

Matthew 25:31-46 King James Version

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Nowhere does it say anyone in those situations should be judged in order to be helped. Nowhere does it say that it should be only through Christian organizations that such people be helped. Don't blame me because your bible is obviously different than mine. But then I don't own a Trump Bible.

Wrong again you do not know your history. This country was founded on Christianity and wrote the constitution around Biblical principles. The Laws our founding Fathers developed came directly from the Book of Deuteronomy. Over have the founded Fathers that signed the Constitution were ordained ministers. They were running from government controlled organized religion to religious freedom. Not freedom from religion.

Again look at your context it is written for a person to do those things as a follower of Christ. No where is it written for government to take anything from people to give to others. You are using those verses out of context to fit an agenda.

Also, as far as your comment about the Old Testament. In the New Testament there is this text below in John that shows that Jesus is the word and was there at the beginning in Genisis 1 so the entire Old Testament is as relevant today as it was yesterday. And as for your pork comment Paul spoke about that and while Jewish people still follow the old covenant the new covenant allows for pork to be eaten. The Old Testament in the Bible is relevant, and the laws show man that we are flawed and need a savior. We no longer are under the old covenant which required sacrificing animals as atonement but rather our savior's sacrifice was enough. So again, read the entire Bible and not pick and choose verses to prove an agenda. Satan can do that he did that when he took Jesus up to be tempted. I don't think you want to be like him.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Freedom of religion is not from the book of Deuteronomy. Religious freedom insures we all have the right to believe any religion we see fir and not have a single religion or its teachings imposed upon us.

Nowhere is it said that it is wrong when a government is following the message of Jesus in supporting the poor or you should fight against that either.

Several Founding Fathers, most notably John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, explicitly stated that the United States was not founded on Christianity. They deliberately designed the U.S. Constitution to be secular, avoiding references to God or the Bible.

Specific quotes, documents, and sentiments from the founders include:

John Adams (The Treaty of Tripoli): In 1797, under the Adams administration, the United States unanimously ratified the Treaty with Tripoli (a peace pact with Muslim rulers in North Africa). It explicitly stated: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Thomas Jefferson: A champion of the separation of church and state, Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between Church & State." In his personal writings, he was highly critical of orthodox Christian doctrines and stripped his own version of the Bible of all supernatural and divine elements.

James Madison: Known as the "Father of the Constitution" and author of the Bill of Rights, Madison consistently fought against state-sponsored religion. He believed mixing religion and government corrupted both, and strongly opposed requiring any religious tests for public office.

George Washington: While a theist, Washington frequently avoided religious jargon in his official duties. During his administration, American diplomat Joel Barlow negotiated the Treaty with Tripoli (including the "not in any sense founded" line), which Washington approved before it was forwarded to the Senate.

Thomas Paine: A prominent intellectual and advocate for the separation of religion and politics, Paine heavily promoted Deism. He denounced the union of church and state, arguing that mingling them inevitably leads to corruption and the loss of individual liberty.

The clearest proof of this intent is found in the supreme law of the land itself. The U.S. Constitution contains two specific clauses that cleave church and state:The First Amendment ensures Congress makes no law "respecting an establishment of religion."

Article VI explicitly states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I'm sorry you have been programmed and convinced otherwise.

Your last post had nothing that pertained to this thread. Now you're just trying to get on your pulpit pretending you understand the gospel.

Go ahead and believe lies all you want.

That would make me no different than you. No thanks.

But that's now what you call it when faced with facts and truth.

You quote the Old Testament? Do you eat pork and seafood? Do you keep the Sabbath on Saturday? Or do you only care about the parts of the Old Testament you use to push your beliefs and ignore the rest of it? You ignored this the last time I asked and I expect you will do the same this time.

You presented no facts. I told you facts. You pick and choose verses and documents instead of the whole Book. Again, Satan can quote verses in the Bible. He and his kind do that regularly and miss context to promote agendas. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Why would the entire Church not see things the way you do? Are they all wrong and somehow you are so enlightened that you are the only one that is right. Give me a break. Billy Graham was a great man of God and at one time he was supported by both political parties. What changed? The Church, the Bible, or a political party. I can answer that for you. The agenda of the left is so off course it is ridiculous and it is sad when people buy into those lies. In the days following the birth of Christianity and the works of the disciples' people in Greece and Rome worshipped many gods and killed many people that failed to worship those same gods. This globalist movement that supports the alphabet people and all wokeness, support for Muslims, and all forms of socialism has the same demons behind them that was behind the gods of those days. This Country was founded on Biblical principles read the Federalist Papers.

Matthew 25:31-46 isn't a verse. It's a compete story. You posted your truth. Those aren't facts. They are what you choose to believe and your interpretation of facts.

In case you missed it, "the entire Church" whatever you think that means, does not see things the way you see it either. Much to your surprise it seems you do not speak for all Christians. Also much to your surprise not all who see things differently than you do are some dark, evil forces trying to destroy America either.

Many democrats are Christians. They just believe in the teaching of the New Testament. The message of Christ which was the teachings for the Christians. They don't go back to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament they want to preach and follow and which parts they decided to ignore the way you do.


Could it possibly be that he died in Feb. of 2018? Dear Lord man.