{"id":429,"date":"2026-08-16T13:44:04","date_gmt":"2026-08-16T13:44:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/capitolpulsed.com\/?p=429"},"modified":"2026-08-16T13:44:04","modified_gmt":"2026-08-16T13:44:04","slug":"the-supreme-court-is-taking-a-second-look-at-the-carroll-case-and-the-doj-perjury-probe-makes-it-impossible-to-ignore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/capitolpulsed.com\/?p=429","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Is Taking a Second Look at the Carroll Case \u2014 and the DOJ Perjury Probe Makes It Impossible to Ignore"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

President Trump potentially caught a huge break last week in righting a horrible wrong.<\/em>\u00a0The Supreme Court hasn\u2019t granted a rehearing petition since 2018, but it redistributed a request from the president to rehear the E. Jean Carroll case. That fact alone should stop everyone who has already moved on to the next headline. Start with the money \u2013 because the money is where this story gets genuinely explosive. Carroll\u2019s litigation was funded in part by Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn billionaire and major Democratic donor, through a nonprofit called American Future Republic that funneled roughly $7 million to her lawyers. Hoffman\u2019s role stayed hidden until weeks before the first trial. Carroll testified in her 2022 deposition, under oath, that no one else was paying her legal fees. The DOJ is now investigating whether that was perjury. A federal appeals court ruled Carroll had \u201cplausibly forgotten\u201d who was cutting the checks. Seven million dollars. Plausibly forgotten. You are welcome to believe that if you choose.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

The underlying claim rests on Carroll\u2019s allegation that Trump assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room sometime in 1995 or 1996. No police report. No contemporaneous complaint beyond two friends she says she told. No surviving security footage \u2013 Bergdorf confirmed it keeps none from that era. Enter New York\u2019s Adult Survivors Act, which was passed in 2022 and is allowed to be applied retroactively (some say the Democrats who run New York passed it specifically so Carroll could sue Trump). The law created the one-year window that got her claim into court at all. A new statute. Not new evidence.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s Defense and Evidence Questions<\/h2>\n

Trump denied ever meeting Carroll. A 2022 deposition produced the one photo of them together: a receiving line at a 1987 NBC charity event, lasting five or six minutes by Carroll\u2019s own account. Trump\u2019s explanation \u2013 that he shook thousands of hands at charity events and couldn\u2019t place every face decades later \u2013 is eminently plausible to anyone who has ever worked a receiving line at a large event. A forgotten face in a 35-year-old photo proves nothing about a private dressing room incident. A sympathetic jury still found Trump liable and awarded Carroll tens of millions. The Second Circuit upheld it.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Here is Trump\u2019s actual argument to the Supreme Court: the jury never should have heard testimony from other accusers making decades-old allegations, or the 2005 Access Hollywood tape, both admitted as \u201cpattern evidence.\u201d Carroll\u2019s own lawyers concede the case might look different without that evidence \u2013 arguing only that her testimony alone was sufficient. That is the entire appeal in one sentence: whether piling on unrelated allegations to prove a specific claim is how American justice is supposed to work.<\/p>\n

The Rules of Evidence and Justice Standards<\/h2>\n

The rules of evidence exist precisely because our system is built on the principle that you get held liable for what you did \u2013 not for who you are or who else says you did something similar. Carroll\u2019s legal team leaned hard on the \u201cwho you are\u201d version. It worked. Brett Kavanaugh nearly lost his Supreme Court seat over an allegation where the accuser couldn\u2019t fix the year, the house, or the guest list, and her own named witness said she had no memory of the event. That standard should apply equally here \u2013 not selectively based on who is on the other side of the caption. The Supreme Court is taking a second look. The DOJ perjury probe is running alongside it. This case isn\u2019t over.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n