Shock New Revelations Regarding Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Drop - This Is Why She's Under Investigation
New York City – May 28, 2026
Department of Justice Opens Perjury Investigation into E. Jean Carroll Over Trump Sexual Assault Allegations, New Reporting Highlights Long-Standing Questions About Credibility and Funding
New York City, New York — The Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into author E. Jean Carroll for potential perjury related to her long-running sexual assault allegations against President Donald J. Trump, according to new revelations reported by conservative columnist Byron York.
Carroll first publicly accused Trump of assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in midtown Manhattan sometime in the mid-1990s. The claims were detailed in her 2019 book and later became the subject of high-profile civil litigation that resulted in substantial damage awards against Trump.
Critics of the allegations have repeatedly pointed to several inconsistencies and unanswered questions. Among them is Carroll’s inability to identify a precise year for the alleged incident, as well as aspects of the timeline and surrounding details that they say are difficult to reconcile.
Carroll has offered multiple explanations for waiting decades before coming forward, citing concerns about her Republican mother’s health and fears that public disclosure could inadvertently benefit Trump politically during the height of the #MeToo movement.
She disclosed the allegations in her 2019 book rather than through law enforcement, traditional news outlets, or legal channels. Skeptics have noted that the timing coincided with the book’s publication and potential royalty generation.
Prior to the book’s release, Carroll had been operating a paid “Most Hideous Men in NYC Walking Tour,” a 90-minute guided experience that included the Bergdorf Goodman entrance as a featured stop.
York’s reporting also examines the origins of the legal strategy. Carroll attended a gathering at the Manhattan home of writer Molly Jong-Fast, described by The New York Times as “Resistance Twitter come to life,” where prominent anti-Trump figures including George Conway were present. Conway reportedly advised Carroll on pursuing a defamation lawsuit against Trump.
The case received a significant boost when the New York legislature passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, which temporarily lifted statutes of limitations for certain sexual assault claims. Carroll had advocated for the legislation and filed a second lawsuit within hours of the law taking effect on November 24, 2022, adding a rape allegation to her existing defamation claims.
Tech billionaire Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and a vocal Trump critic, provided financial backing for the legal efforts. During testimony, however, Carroll stated under oath that no one was paying her legal fees and described the case as a contingency arrangement.
Just before the trial began, Carroll’s attorney notified Trump’s legal team that she had “recollected additional information” while preparing for testimony. Trump’s lawyers described the late disclosure as raising “significant concerns” about bias and motive.
Hoffman has faced his own past scrutiny; in 2018 he publicly apologized after it was revealed that he had funded a group accused of using deceptive tactics resembling Russian disinformation to influence a Democratic Senate race in Alabama.
York’s analysis frames the case as part of a broader examination into what he and other critics describe as a coordinated network of activist lawyers, wealthy donors, resistance groups, and strategically timed legal maneuvers aimed at Trump.
The Department of Justice investigation is ongoing, and no formal charges have been announced. Carroll’s legal representatives have not issued a public response to the latest reporting as of this writing. The developments have reignited partisan debate over the credibility of high-profile accusations against the president and the role of private funding in politically sensitive litigation.
6-3 RULING - Supreme Court Deals Brutal Blow to Hakeem Jeffries
Washington, D.C. - June 5, 2026
Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Proceed with New Congressional Map for 2026 Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned 6-3 order on Tuesday permitting Alabama to use a newly enacted congressional district map in the 2026 midterm elections. The decision lifts a lower court injunction and is expected to result in a congressional delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat.
The ruling came after Alabama had already held its congressional primary elections in May. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation authorizing special elections in August for affected districts, contingent on final court approval of the map.
The order relied in part on the Purcell principle, which generally discourages federal courts from altering election rules close to an election. The majority stated that the district court had improperly intervened in Alabama’s efforts to conduct its elections under maps selected by the state’s elected representatives. The court noted that while federal courts should avoid last-minute changes, states retain authority to determine whether such adjustments serve their interests.
Connection to Voting Rights Act Precedent
The decision follows a 6-3 ruling issued by the Supreme Court on April 29 regarding the Voting Rights Act. That earlier decision established that claims alleging racial discrimination in districting generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong inference of intentional discrimination before proceeding with litigation.
The current order addresses ongoing redistricting litigation in Alabama. The new map is anticipated to alter the composition of the state’s seven-member congressional delegation. Democratic Representatives Shomari Figures of the 2nd District and Terri Sewell of the 7th District are currently the only Black members of Alabama’s House delegation. The new configuration could affect representation in one of those districts.
Dissenting Opinion
The three liberal justices dissented from the unsigned order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority’s approach had created turmoil and harm. She argued that the court was doubling down on prior decisions that she viewed as undermining protections under the Voting Rights Act.
Broader Redistricting Context
The Alabama case is one of several redistricting disputes before the Supreme Court involving states such as Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and California. With control of the U.S. House expected to be closely contested, these cases have taken on added significance for both parties ahead of the November elections.
The Supreme Court’s recent interventions have already influenced district boundaries in multiple states. Additional litigation remains pending, and further developments could continue to shape the partisan balance of the House in the upcoming midterm cycle.
The Alabama order permits the state to move forward with its chosen map while legal proceedings on related matters continue. The full impact on the composition of Alabama’s congressional delegation will depend on the outcome of the August special elections and any subsequent legal challenges.
GHOST VOTERS' REVEALED — California Elections Rocked After Stunning Discovery
Sacramento, California - June 5, 2026
Lawsuit Filed Against California Secretary of State Alleging Failure to Remove Inactive Voter Registrations
A federal lawsuit has been filed against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber alleging that the state has failed to remove hundreds of thousands of inactive voter registrations from its rolls in violation of federal law. The complaint was brought by Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State, and the American Independent Party of California, with assistance from Judicial Watch.
The lawsuit claims that California has not removed approximately 873,092 inactive voter registrations as required under the National Voter Registration Act. Federal law mandates that states remove certain registrations after voters fail to participate in multiple consecutive federal election cycles and do not respond to address verification notices.
Court filings state that more than 873,000 registrations remained on the rolls despite being inactive through at least three consecutive federal elections. The complaint further alleges that over 151,000 registrations remained active after four consecutive election cycles without voter participation.
California maintains more than 23 million registered voters, the largest voter registration system in the United States. Plaintiffs argue that the state’s practices violate requirements under the National Voter Registration Act for maintaining accurate voter lists.
Previous Actions and Current Allegations
In 2019, Judicial Watch reached a settlement with California and Los Angeles County that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million inactive voter registrations. The current lawsuit contends that similar issues persist across much of the state despite those prior efforts.
The complaint notes that 20 California counties removed 50 or fewer inactive registrations over a recent period, even as census data showed substantial population shifts and migration out of the state.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring California to implement a more aggressive program for removing registrations that no longer meet federal eligibility requirements. It also asks the court to prevent future violations of federal election law.
State Response and Context
California officials have maintained that the state’s election system includes multiple safeguards, including signature matching, voter identification checks where required, and criminal penalties for fraud. State representatives have stated that the system is secure and employs verification procedures designed to prevent illegal voting.
The lawsuit was filed amid ongoing scrutiny of California’s election processes. Recent incidents include damage to a mail ballot drop box that was vandalized and set on fire, as well as a report of an unsecured ballot center in the Bay Area discovered by a voter outside normal operating hours.
The case will proceed in federal court, where judges will evaluate whether California’s voter registration maintenance practices comply with federal requirements. The outcome could affect procedures ahead of future elections, including the November general election.
