InvestingCongress
  • Investing
  • Business
  • Stock
  • Politics
Politics

DOJ review blames Stone sentencing flip on poor leadership, not politics

by July 24, 2024
July 24, 2024

The Justice Department’s inspector general on Wednesday blamed “ineffectual leadership” and not political interference for the softening of Roger Stone’s sentencing recommendation in February 2020 after his conviction for lying to Congress. The report upheld an account by then-Attorney General William P. Barr but also found that line prosecutors’ suspicions of political meddling by President Donald Trump’s administration were not unreasonable.

A longtime political confidant of Trump and a GOP consultant, Stone was found guilty by a jury in November 2019 of lying to a House panel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. At sentencing, front-line prosecutors initially notified the court that a sentence of about six to seven years would be appropriate under federal guidelines.

Within hours of that filing, and after Trump tweeted that the request was “disgraceful” and a “miscarriage of justice” that could not be allowed, Barr overruled the trial team. A second memo signed by supervisors retracted the recommendation, prompting all four prosecutors to quit the case. Some of them later said publicly that they believed they were undercut by department leaders to protect Trump’s longtime ally.

Stone was ultimately sentenced to a little more than three years behind bars, which Trump later commuted, sparing him prison time.

The Stone sentencing triggered a crisis of confidence in Barr and the Justice Department through the end of Trump’s presidency, prompting hundreds of former employees to call for his resignation and to exhort active employees to report any unethical conduct or politicization of decisions.

After a four-year investigation, the office of Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said it found no evidence of political interference and instead blamed “ineffectual leadership” by then-acting U.S. attorney Tim Shea of Washington, D.C., who was supervising the case and who had been on the job for two weeks.

Barr, who declined to be interviewed for the inspector general’s investigation, at the time denied that Trump’s Twitter tirade prompted the reversal. Instead, Barr said Shea — formerly one of his closest advisers at the department — had initially signaled to him that the recommendation would be much lower. Barr said he had been “very surprised” by the outcome.

Horowitz’s office found that “rather than taking the approach he discussed with Barr, and despite telling Barr that he believed the Guidelines range was unreasonable,” Shea authorized line prosecutors to issue a stiffer recommendation. Barr expressed to staffers that the action was not what he and Shea had discussed and needed to be “fixed,” but the inspector general found that Barr’s position was consistent before and after the recommendation was filed and before Trump tweeted.

“Based on the evidence described in this report, we concluded that the sequence of events that resulted in the Department’s extraordinary step of filing a second sentencing memorandum was largely due to Shea’s ineffectual leadership,” the report concluded.

The report added, however, that prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky’s later testimony to Congress that he and the rest of the trial team had been pressured to revise the memorandum for political reasons “was not unreasonable.” It cited statements by another prosecutor and “speculative comments” by a supervising prosecutor about possible political interference.

“We recognize that the Department’s handling of the sentencing in the Stone case was highly unusual,” given the participation of Trump political appointees Shea and Barr, the report stated. However, it concluded that absent any prohibition on their involvement, their actions were ultimately left up to their own “discretion and judgment,” including on how they would affect public perceptions of the department’s integrity and independence.

Zelinsky attorney Joshua Matz said in a statement: “The rule of law depends on prosecutors pursuing and telling the truth. My client is gratified the report confirms that he told the truth about what he saw and heard.”

Representatives for Shea, Barr and Trump could not immediately be reached for comment.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com
previous post
Labor groups begin to unite behind Harris’ campaign — but some holdouts remain
next post
Spot Ether ETFs Make US Debut

You may also like

Trump’s exaggerated claim that Pennsylvania has 500,000 fracking...

October 24, 2024

Tucker Carlson says father Trump will give ‘spanking’...

October 24, 2024

A GOP operative accused a monastery of voter...

October 24, 2024

American creating deepfakes targeting Harris works with Russian...

October 23, 2024

Early voting in Wisconsin slowed by label printing...

October 23, 2024

Donald Trump fixates on Harris aide Ian Sams,...

October 23, 2024

Trump supporters are more likely to expect a...

October 23, 2024

Wrong-way driver passes Harris motorcade on Milwaukee highway

October 23, 2024

Trump meets definition of ‘fascist,’ says John Kelly,...

October 23, 2024

The practical and moral difficulties of deporting millions...

October 23, 2024
Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get Premium Articles For Free

    Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

    Recent Posts

    • NorthStar Gaming Announces Receipt of Management Cease Trade Order

      May 9, 2025
    • $2.6M Placement and SPP to fast-track China entry and sales

      May 9, 2025
    • Drill Contract Awarded for Elizabeth Hill. Technical Visit Completed to Define Drill Targets

      May 9, 2025
    • Brunswick Exploration Announces Brokered Private Placement for Gross Proceeds of up to C$2.5 Million, with a Lead Order from a Strategic Investor

      May 9, 2025
    • Don’t Buy Robinhood Stock… Until You See This Chart Setup

      May 9, 2025
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2025 investingcongress.com | All Rights Reserved

    InvestingCongress
    • Investing
    • Business
    • Stock
    • Politics