E. Jean Carroll, and the unmistakable pattern of Trump’s retribution campaign

E. Jean Carroll, and the unmistakable pattern of Trump’s retribution campaign

E Jean Carroll and the unmistakable – Recent developments have cast new light on the Justice Department’s role in what some view as a systematic effort to target political adversaries of President Donald Trump. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has asserted that “it’s absolutely not true” that the DOJ is aiding Trump in a retribution strategy against those who have challenged him legally. Yet, the evidence pointing to an alternative scenario is becoming increasingly compelling, suggesting that the department may be actively investigating individuals who have stood against the former president in significant legal matters.

One of the most notable cases under scrutiny involves E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine columnist who previously won a landmark civil lawsuit against Trump for sexual abuse and defamation. CNN’s latest report reveals that the DOJ is examining whether Carroll committed perjury in her legal actions against the president. This inquiry follows Trump’s appeal of the sexual abuse case to the Supreme Court and his intention to challenge the defamation case as well. The investigation into Carroll’s credibility has raised questions about the timing and purpose of these actions, particularly since her legal team has yet to respond publicly.

“It’s absolutely not true” that the Justice Department is assisting Trump in a retribution campaign, Blanche emphasized, highlighting his belief in the department’s impartiality. However, the pattern of targeting key figures associated with Trump’s legal challenges continues to emerge, suggesting a more deliberate approach.

A pattern of legal targeting

The pattern is clear: Trump’s DOJ has taken investigative steps against individuals central to his major legal issues. For instance, former New York Attorney General Letitia James, who secured a major civil fraud judgment against Trump in 2024, was indicted last year over allegations of mortgage fraud. The indictment, however, was based on relatively weak evidence, and when it was dismissed due to prosecutorial irregularities, the DOJ attempted to refile charges twice. Even now, the Times has reported that the department is still reviewing new allegations involving James, indicating a persistent interest in her case.

Similarly, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director James Brennan, both pivotal in the early stages of the Russia investigation that shadowed Trump during his first term, have faced scrutiny. Comey was indicted for alleged perjury in 2025, a charge that was later invalidated for the same reasons as James’s indictment. More recently, the DOJ secured a new indictment against Comey for a separate issue: a purported threat against Trump, which legal experts remain skeptical about. Brennan’s case, meanwhile, has lingered for months, with prosecutors struggling to gather enough evidence to justify a criminal probe into his alleged testimony to Congress.

Expanding the scope of investigations

The retribution campaign isn’t limited to civil cases. Trump’s administration has also turned its focus toward key figures in congressional investigations and impeachments. During his first impeachment, the Washington Post reported that then-interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin sent letters probing a business linked to Democratic Rep. Eugene Vindman and his brother, Alexander Vindman, who is running for the U.S. Senate. Both Vindmans were central to the allegations surrounding Trump’s 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a pivotal moment in the impeachment process.

More recently, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard submitted a criminal referral to the DOJ, seeking an investigation into Michael Atkinson, the former inspector general of the intelligence community. Atkinson played a key role in sharing a whistleblower complaint that triggered the Trump-Russia probe. Gabbard’s referral, however, has not yet resulted in formal charges, underscoring the broader pattern of the DOJ probing individuals involved in Trump’s legal and political controversies.

Another example is Fani Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney who led the indictment of Trump and his allies for alleged election interference in 2023. The Times reported in October that the DOJ is scrutinizing Willis, including a review of a subpoena related to a Bahamas trip she took. Willis’s office explained the trip was for leadership training and that no government funds were used, yet the DOJ’s interest in her activities persists. This suggests that the administration may be looking for any potential grounds to challenge her work, regardless of the evidence.

Broader implications of the DOJ’s actions

The DOJ’s focus on individuals who have opposed Trump raises concerns about the fairness of these investigations. Many of the allegations against these figures appear to lack substantial proof when examined closely. For instance, the mortgage fraud case against Letitia James was initially based on thin claims, and the same can be said for some of the charges against Carroll. Critics argue that the timing of these probes—coinciding with Trump’s legal appeals and political ambitions—may indicate a coordinated effort to weaken his opponents before major rulings.

Moreover, the administration has targeted those who have played critical roles in Trump’s legal battles. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who secured two federal indictments against Trump, is now the subject of an Office of Special Counsel investigation for alleged Hatch Act violations. The Hatch Act restricts political activity by government officials, and the investigation into Smith highlights how even those who have prosecuted Trump are not immune to scrutiny. This dual role of the DOJ—both as an enforcer of justice and a potential tool of retribution—has sparked debate about its independence and objectivity.

The pattern of the DOJ’s actions suggests a broader strategy to identify and investigate individuals who have been central to Trump’s legal challenges. From civil lawsuits to criminal probes, the department has consistently targeted figures who have stood against him, often at a time when the outcomes of their cases could influence public perception or political momentum. This approach has been criticized as a means of exerting pressure on opponents, ensuring that any potential legal victories against Trump are met with countermeasures.

While some argue that these investigations are necessary to address legitimate legal issues, others see them as part of a larger retribution campaign. The DOJ’s actions against Carroll, James, Comey, and Willis illustrate a recurring theme: the use of legal mechanisms to target those who have previously succeeded in holding Trump accountable. Whether this is a coincidence or a calculated effort remains a point of contention, but the evidence increasingly points to the latter.