Department of Justice Initiates Criminal Inquiry into E. Jean Carroll Regarding Alleged Perjury
司法部就涉嫌偽證對 E. Jean Carroll 展開刑事調查
Introduction
The United States Department of Justice has commenced a criminal investigation into author E. Jean Carroll to determine if she provided false testimony during civil litigation against President Donald Trump.
美國司法部已對作家 E. Jean Carroll 展開刑事調查，以確定其在針對總統川普的民事訴訟中是否提供了虛假證詞。
Main Body
The inquiry, administered by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, focuses on a 2022 deposition in which Ms. Carroll stated she had received no external financial support for her legal proceedings. Subsequent disclosures revealed that a nonprofit associated with billionaire Reid Hoffman provided funding for her legal counsel. While the administration posits that this discrepancy constitutes perjury, a 2024 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Ms. Carroll's statement was a plausible reflection of her lack of involvement in the funding arrangements.
此次調查由伊利諾州北區聯邦檢察官辦公室主導，重點在於 2022 年的一次宣誓供詞，當時 Carroll 女士聲稱其法律程序未獲得任何外部財務支持。隨後的披露顯示，一個與億萬富翁 Reid Hoffman 相關的非營利組織為其法律顧問提供了資金。雖然政府認為此差異構成偽證，但第二巡迴上訴法院 2024 年的一項裁定認為，Carroll 女士的陳述可信，反映出她並不參與資金安排。
This action occurs within a broader context of judicial activity involving the two parties. Ms. Carroll previously secured civil judgments totaling approximately $88.3 million after juries found President Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The administration has sought to mitigate these outcomes through appeals to the Supreme Court. Concurrently, the Justice Department has pursued various criminal inquiries and indictments against other perceived political adversaries, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, though these efforts have frequently encountered institutional resistance from grand juries and federal judges.
此行動發生在雙方更廣泛的司法活動背景下。在陪審團裁定川普總統對性侵和毀謗負責後，Carroll 女士先前獲得了總計約 8,830 萬美元的民事判決。政府已試圖透過向最高法院上訴來減輕這些結果。與此同時，司法部也對其他被視為政治對手的人員採取了各種刑事調查和起訴，包括前 FBI 局長 James Comey 和紐約州總檢察長 Letitia James，儘管這些努力經常遇到大陪審團和聯邦法官的體制阻力。
Parallel to these developments, the administration has established a $1.776 billion 'anti-weaponization fund' to compensate individuals claiming they were victims of politically motivated lawfare. This fund, resulting from a settlement with the Internal Revenue Service, has encountered significant opposition. A coalition of 35 former federal judges has petitioned to reopen the underlying IRS case, alleging the settlement was a product of collusion. Furthermore, officials in California and New York have proposed 100% income taxes on any payouts received by state residents from this fund to prevent the enrichment of political allies.
與這些發展平行，政府建立了一個 17.76 億美元的「反武器化基金」，用以補償聲稱自己是政治動機法律戰受害者的個人。該基金源於與美國國稅局（IRS）的和解，但遭遇了強烈反對。一個由 35 位前聯邦法官組成的聯盟已請願要求重新開啟相關的 IRS 案件，指稱該和解協議是共謀的產物。此外，加州和紐約州的官號建議對州內居民從該基金收到的任何款項徵收 100% 的所得稅，以防止政治盟友獲利。
Conclusion
The Justice Department continues its investigation into Ms. Carroll's testimony while the administration simultaneously manages multiple legal challenges to its broader prosecutorial and financial strategies.
司法部將繼續調查 Carroll 女士的證詞，而政府同時也在應對多項針對其更廣泛起訴與財務策略的法律挑戰。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of Legalistic Nuance: Hedging and Formal Attribution
To bridge the gap from B2 to C2, a student must move beyond stating facts to framing assertions. In high-level academic and legal English, the writer rarely claims a fact is 'true'; instead, they describe the status of the claim. This text is a goldmine for studying epistemic modality—the linguistic expression of how certain we are about a proposition.
⚖️ The Power of the 'Attributive Verb'
Look at how the text avoids definitive judgment through precise verbs:
- "The administration posits that..."
- "...concluded that Ms. Carroll's statement was a plausible reflection..."
- "...alleging the settlement was a product of collusion."
C2 Insight: A B2 student would say "The government says it is perjury." A C2 master uses "posits". To posit is not merely to say; it is to put forward a premise as the basis for an argument. It shifts the focus from the truth of the statement to the strategy of the speaker.
🧩 Lexical Collocations of Institutional Friction
Note the sophisticated pairing of adjectives and nouns that describe conflict without using emotional language. This is known as clinical objectivity.
Institutional resistance (Not "fighting," but a systemic refusal to cooperate). Politically motivated lawfare (The coinage of 'lawfare' blends 'law' and 'warfare', a high-level conceptual metaphor). Underlying case (The fundamental legal matter that precedes current disputes).
🔍 The 'Discrepancy' Logic
Observe the transition: "Subsequent disclosures revealed... While the administration posits that this discrepancy constitutes perjury..."
The word discrepancy is the pivot. It transforms a potential 'lie' into a 'difference between two sets of data.' In C2 discourse, choosing a neutral noun (discrepancy) over a loaded one (lie) allows the writer to maintain an aura of impartiality while still highlighting a contradiction.
Mastery Shift: To implement this, stop using verbs like believe, think, or say. Replace them with contend, assert, posit, allege, or stipulate to signal the exact legal or intellectual weight of the claim.