AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We end today’s show with the latest news that the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into the writer E. Jean Carroll. According to The New York Times and CNN, the inquiry is looking into whether Carroll committed perjury in a 2022 deposition. That’s despite a 2024 ruling by a federal appeals court panel that dismissed claims E. Jean Carroll committed perjury.

In 2019, Carroll published a memoir describing an encounter in the 1990s when she says Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room. When Trump denied the account, Carroll sued him and won $5 million in damages, with a unanimous New York jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

AMY GOODMAN: After Trump made disparaging remarks about E. Jean Carroll, she sued him again and won a second defamation judgment for over $83 million. Federal courts have upheld both verdicts, though on Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court deferred its decision on whether to hear President Trump’s appeal of the $5 million civil verdict. It was the 12th time the Supreme Court has deferred the appeal.

We’ll have more right now with Deborah Tuerkheimer, professor of law at Northwestern University and the author of Credible: Why We Doubt Accusers and Protect Abusers.

Professor Tuerkheimer, if you can respond to this latest news, that I think have rocked many in this country? President Trump faces paying E. Jean Carroll close to $90 million, and now his own Department of Justice is criminally investigating her? Can you talk about the grounds and the history of this case?

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: Yes, I can do that. Thanks for having me.

I guess we need to go back to October 2022. During the discovery phase of E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit, she was deposed. And one of the questions that she was asked pertained to whether she was getting any outside funding for her legal fees, and she answered no. This Department of Justice investigation into perjury charges centers on that particular response. So it’s a very small piece of this lawsuit. Donald Trump has tried over and over again to impugn E. Jean Carroll’s credibility around the sexual abuse allegations. That has been unsuccessful over and over again. So, this is about the question of whether she knew, when she answered no to that question about outside legal funding, that, in fact, billionaire Reid Hoffman had contributed some money to her, to her case, to her lawyers, to enable this to actually come forward, because, as we know, it’s very expensive to sue civilly, and particularly to go up against someone with the resources of Donald Trump. So, this perjury investigation centers on that deposition. It’s unusual in so many ways, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain those ways.

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: So, there are some very technical, let’s say, obstacles to proving perjury in this case, that I’m thinking about even at this very early stage of an investigation. So, one point to make is that E. Jean Carroll must have willfully or knowingly lied under oath in this deposition. If she simply made a mistake, if she wasn’t aware of whatever funding arrangement was in place, that’s not perjury.

A second point is that the statement must have some material bearing on the likely outcome of the case. Here, when E. Jean Carroll’s allegations went to trial, ultimately, the judge decided that none of this, none of this, should even come into evidence. It was too tangential to bear in any meaningful way on the case. So, that materiality requirement is going to be tough.

The venue is unusual here. “Why Chicago?” you might ask. Well, it’s unclear. Apparently, there may be some connection to one of Reid Hoffman’s nonprofits. But venue is ordinarily in the location where an offense occurred. There’s no allegation that the funding of the legal fees was itself improper. So I find that to be curious.

And then, the last point is probably the most important, which is there is a due process right not to be the victim of any kind of selective or vindictive prosecution. And it’s very apparent on the face of this that the use of the Justice Department to go after E. Jean Carroll in this way is completely unprecedented. It is an obvious indication that Donald Trump continues to go after E. Jean Carroll in this vendetta. And in this case, he’s using the taxpayer-funded Justice Department to do that. These cases are brought in our name, in the name of the people of the United States. And it’s frankly galling.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I mean, so, what broader concerns arise from this Department of Justice investigating someone who has successfully sued a sitting president?

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: Well, there is no precedent for anything like this. To take one question and answer in a civil case and to use that as the basis for this federal investigation, it raises questions about the allocation of resources. Why is this a federal case? Why is it in the interest of justice to go after E. Jean Carroll at this moment in time? And I think the inescapable conclusion is that the Justice Department is being used to pursue Donald Trump’s continuing revenge tour against E. Jean Carroll.

I will also note that, unlike cases against James Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, Jerome Powell, E. Jean Carroll is, and always has been, a private citizen. And so there’s something about this instance that I think may strike people as even more egregious than some examples in the past where selective or vindictive prosecution is very much in the mix. This seems different. And I should say it’s yet another example of the ways in which Donald Trump has tried to silence E. Jean Carroll, has tried to deter her from coming forward, has tried to threaten her into keeping quiet. Even if this investigation goes nowhere, even if there are no successful perjury charges — as I suspect, in the end, there will be no successful perjury charges — it’s hugely daunting to know that you are being investigated by the Justice Department.

AMY GOODMAN: And it’s very interesting that he does this at the time of the theatrical release of the film about her, called Ask E. Jean, and also that this came out after yesterday. If you can, in this last 30 seconds, explain what the Supreme Court did in E. Jean’s case?

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: So, the Supreme Court is continuing to sort of kick the can down the road when it comes to deciding whether Donald Trump has any reason not to pay the judgment against him. It seems as if they may be waiting for his appeal to come up in the second case. You mentioned that there were two verdicts against him, one for around $5 million, one for around $83 million. And it may be that they’re sort of waiting to consolidate his arguments. We won’t know for a bit. But right now the Supreme Court is sort of sitting on these cases.

AMY GOODMAN: Deborah Turkheimer, we want to thank you so much for being with us, professor of law at Northwestern University and the author of the book Credible: Why We Doubt Accusers and Protect Abusers.

That does it for today’s show. I’ll be in Great Barrington today for the 20th anniversary of the Berkshire International Film Festival, where Steal This Story, Please! is the opening film, the film about Democracy Now! and independent media. Tomorrow, I’m headed to Tucson, Arizona, for Friday night and Saturday, a fundraiser for KXCI Community Radio in Tucson. That’s at 10:30 in the morning, the film showing at 1:00 on Saturday and through the week. And then, on Saturday night, I’ll be in Phoenix for the showing of the film, doing the Q&A afterwards. Next week, Tampa, celebrating KFAI Community Radio, and on Sunday we’ll be in Miami. You can check our website. The following week in Vermont, in Burlington, in Montpelier, in St. Johnsbury and more. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Go to democracynow.org for all the details. Thanks so much for joining us.