Donald Trump had a tantrum.
Trump was seated at the defense table in Manhattan federal court on 17 January 2024 when E Jean Carroll – who has said that he sexually assaulted her at a swank New York City department store some three decades prior – confronted him for the first time in a courtroom.
As Carroll said he “assaulted me”, the slightly hunched Trump allegedly grumbled that her claims were false and “she now seems to have gotten her memory back”. Trump, who has repeatedly denied the allegations and all claims of wrongdoing, was spotted whispering to lead lawyer Alina Habba during Carroll’s testimony, “loudly saying things throughout Ms Carroll’s testimony”.
“It’s loud enough for us to hear it,” Shawn Crowley, Carroll’s attorney, said during a morning break. “I imagine it’s loud enough for the jury to hear it.”
Trump, already saddled with a $5m civil verdict from the writer’s successful sexual abuse and defamation trial one year prior, didn’t seem to get anywhere with his outbursts: Carroll was awarded $83.3m at this second trial against him.
But now, as Trump continues to fight the combined $88.8m in verdicts without success, his justice department is reportedly investigating a non-profit that helped fund Carroll’s litigation – which numerous commentators believe marks another example of retaliation against the president’s opponents.
“Are we surprised?” said Brittany Martinez, a Republican strategist and the executive director of Principles First. “It sort of feels like it’s just another day on the admin’s retribution tour.”
“I feel like he’s accustomed to things going his way and when they don’t, especially in such a public forum, I think that really resonates with him,” Martinez said later. “It’s something that he held on to and waited until the time was right. I don’t think he likes people getting one up on him.”
“The president is on his revenge tour, and the Department of Justice is doing his bidding,” said Neama Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosector. “He is using the acting attorney general specifically to go after his political enemies, and probably one of the biggest ones right now is Jean Carroll.”
The non-profit that helped Carroll’s litigation efforts, America Future Republic, is backed by a longtime Trump foe and Democratic mega-donor, Reid Hoffman, a LinkedIn co-founder. A source told the Guardian that this investigation involved possible money-laundering conspiracy and obstruction. Chicago federal prosecutors, who are handling the inquiry, rejected reports that they were investigating Carroll.
Ron Kuby, a veteran defense attorney with a focus on civil rights, who has litigated numerous political prosecutions, said it was difficult to determine exactly what is happening with Trump administration activity.
“Often what the administration says has no relationship to the reality of what it is or is not doing,” he said. “They have stated there is an investigation of some type going on with respect to the funding of her lawsuit and beyond that, it’s kind of impossible to know what it is they’re talking about.”
With this reported investigation, for example, there have not been public reports about grand jury proceedings, witness subpoenas or search warrants.
If there was an investigation, “it’s obviously retribution for her lawsuit and for [the] successful culmination of her trial,” Kuby said, describing this situation as “virtually unheard of”.
Some believe the apparent deep animus the US president feels toward Carroll might simply be to do with Trump’s ego.
“I think it was just something very personal to him,” said Tre Lovell, a longtime Los Angeles-based attorney. Being accused of sexual assault, Lovell said, “is about as bad as it gets”.
“And they were accusing him of doing it,” Lovell said.
Indeed, both Carroll trials dealt blows to Trump’s do-no-wrong braggadocio.
While Trump didn’t show up to Carroll’s first trial against him, this proceeding still proved an extreme embarrassment as a civil jury determined he had sexually abused and defamed her. Further, Trump’s video deposition in this case was released, revealing that he mistook a photo of her for a picture of his second wife, Marla Maples.
Trump did attend the damages trial and his comportment indicated that Carroll’s claims continued to deeply perturb him years after she first made them. An examination of his behavior during the trial reveals his frequent outbursts, anger and complaints – all of them indicative of his belief that he was the victim of a plot to get him and also perhaps offering an explanation for the justice department’s current focus on Carroll.
Despite Judge Lewis Kaplan’s admonition to keep quiet his conversations with Habba, Trump sustained his audible commentary and general petulance when Carroll’s testimony resumed after the morning break.
“The defendant has been making statements again [that] we can hear at counsel table,” Crowley told Kaplan. “He said it is a ‘witch-hunt’, it really is a con-job.”
Kaplan then delivered a blow to Trump’s long consequence-free comportment.
“Mr Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me, and if he disregards court orders,” Kaplan said. “Mr Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial … I understand you are probably very eager for me to do that.”
“I would love it, I would love it,” Trump responded, gesturing.
“I know you would, you just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently.”
“You can’t either,” Trump fired back.
Before Trump testified, as his and Carroll’s lawyers were talking about the possible scope of his testimony, he commented, “I never met this woman,” further indicating his displeasure.
“Keep your voice down,” Kaplan warned, only for another outburst to erupt. “I’m sorry, Mr Trump. You’re interrupting these proceedings by talking loudly while your counsel is talking.”
Trump was prohibited from freewheeling commentary when given the opportunity to address jurors. As Habba asked whether he denied Carroll’s allegation, Trump answered “that’s exactly right. She said something. I considered it a false accusation.”
Kaplan stopped Trump, and did not permit him to speak about his denying Carroll’s claim given the first trial’s verdict.
As the trial neared its end, Trump’s behavior spiraled more. Carroll’s lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, was outlining the harm her client had suffered and noted that he continued his smears after losing the first trial.
“Donald Trump, however, acts as if these rules and laws just don’t apply to him,” Kaplan said about 10 minutes into her closing, noting that he spent “this entire trial” insulting Carroll with online missives. Around this time, Trump got up and left.
“Excuse me,” Judge Kaplan stated. “The record will reflect that Mr Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom.” Trump, who has denied wrongdoing, returned for Habba’s closing.
The White House deferred a request for comment to the justice department, which did not respond to a request for comment.
Carroll did not respond to requests for comment, and her representatives did not comment. Hoffman, who could not be reached, denied wrongdoing on X.
“Trump’s newest accusation of me is absurdly false. The premise of the investigation would be laughable if the subject matter weren’t so serious,” Hoffman said. “He is investigating me because I supported E Jean’s lawsuit.”
The US supreme court has not yet decided whether they will consider Trump’s appeal of Carroll’s $5m verdict.
In Martinez’s overall view, the reported investigation “feels like misplaced attention”.
“When we’ve got gas prices that are pretty high, when we’re at war, it just feels like the focus should be on other things, and not this,” Martinez said. “I don’t know why the administration has decided to pursue this right now.
“More than half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and I just feel like this is a president who doesn’t have his priorities straight – and is more focused on his career legacy and perception than he is about actually doing his job to help the American people.”
From what Kuby has seen over the years, “retribution serves a number of goals”.
“It tends to chill and intimidate other people from coming forward with valid claims, if they know that no matter how much proven evidence they have, they’re going to have their lives destroyed.”
And as for bullies, Kuby said, “there’s a great personal satisfaction in destroying the life of somebody [who] has in some way offended you”.
