On Friday, November 15th, 2019 the Department of Justice formally announced the indictment of Roger Stone, a controversial political operative and 45+ year friend of President Donald Trump. Stone was found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress, and tampering with a witness.
Following Stone’s January 25th arrest at his Fort Lauderdale home, an arrest conducted by heavily armed FBI agents that was captured by CNN camera crews who happened to arrived at his property after receiving a tip that Connecticut native would be arrested, a fight at the Department of Justice was waged over his sentencing.
Though the Department of Justice does not have the power to sentence any individual they choose to prosecute, a power which lies in the hands of the Judge presiding over the case, the DOJ is tasked with recommending a sentence that is often heavily influential in the eventual sentencing decision.
Stone’s sentencing became a source of great controversy within the Department of Justice for two reasons. 1) Stone’s proximity to the President of the United States meant that the Department’s decision, no matter what it was, was bound to generate controversy, and 2) Stone’s charges required an extremely unique sentencing, considering the foundational reasoning behind the investigation over which Stone was indicted, alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 Election, was never definitively proven by the Justice Department, particularly in the case of Roger Stone, as stated in the unredacted version of the Mueller Report released in November of 2020.
“The Office’s determination that it could not charge WikiLeaks or Stone as part of the Section 1030 conspiracy was also informed by the constitutional issues that such a prosecution would present. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the First Amendment protects a party’s publication of illegally intercepted communications on a matter of public concern, even when the publishing parties knew or had reason to know of the intercepts’ unlawful origin“
“The Office determined that it could not pursue a Section 1030 conspiracy charge against Stone for some of the same legal reasons. The most fundamental hurdles, though, are factual ones.1279 As explained in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra, Corsi’s accounts of his interactions with Stone on October 7, 2016 are not fully consistent or corroborated. Even if they were, neither Corsi’s testimony nor other evidence currently available to the Office is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone knew or believed that the computer intrusions were ongoing at the time he ostensibly encouraged or coordinated the publication of the Podesta emails. Stone’s actions would thus be consistent with (among other things) a belief that he was aiding in the dissemination of the fruits of an already completed hacking operation perpetrated by a third party, which would be a level of knowledge insufficient to establish conspiracy liability. See State v. Phillips, 82 S.E.2d 762, 766 (N.C. 1954) (“In the very nature of things, persons cannot retroactively conspire to commit a previously consummated crime.”) (quoted in Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.03, at 442 (1985).
“Regardless, success would also depend upon evidence of WikiLeaks’s and Stone’s knowledge of ongoing or contemplated future computer intrusions-the proof that is currently lacking.”
The Justice Department’s case against Stone, led by four prosecutors Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Jonathan Kravis, Adam Jed and Mike Marando, initially recommended in early 2020 that Stone be sentenced to 7-9 years in prison for the charges of obstructing a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress, and tampering with a witness.
The DOJ, shortly after making that recommendation, rescinded its position, instead opting to recommend a much lighter punishment. Due to this change in position, the four prosecutors assigned to the case resigned, causing a firestorm of political angst and fiery media coverage.
Stone would eventually be sentenced to just 40 months in Prison. Just days before the veteran political operative was set to begin serving his sentence in a dank Georgia federal prison, his sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump. Stone would later receive a full Presidential pardon.
Following their decision to reverse the initial sentencing recommendation of 7-9 years, Democrat leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer immediately called for an investigation into the Justice Department. Schumer even went as far as to accuse President Donald Trump of personally intervening in the investigation.
Schumer said at the time,
“The President ran against the swamp in Washington, a place where the game is rigged by the powerful to benefit them personally, I ask my fellow Americans, what is more swampy, what is more feted, what is more stinking than the most powerful person in the country literally changing the rules to benefit a crony guilty of breaking the law. I have formally requested that the inspector general of the Justice department investigate this matter immediately,”
Schumer’s statements on the Senate floor alleged egregious violations of the laws of the United States on the shallow basis that Trump criticized the investigation on his Twitter feed two separate times before the Justice Department reversed their decision. There was no evidence to suggest, at the time, that Trump’s tweets had in any way impacted the Department’s decision.
Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also levied accusations at Trump and his Justice Department, saying in a tweet, “It is outrageous that DOJ has deeply damaged the rule of law by withdrawing its recommendation. Stepping down of prosecutors should be commended & actions of DOJ should be investigated.”
By tweet @realDonaldTrump engaged in political interference in the sentencing of Roger Stone. It is outrageous that DOJ has deeply damaged the rule of law by withdrawing its recommendation. Stepping down of prosecutors should be commended & actions of DOJ should be investigated.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) February 12, 2020
Trump, Stone, and Department of Justice Cleared In Review Of Roger Stone Case
An investigation published by the Inspector General’s office on July 24th, 2024 has definitively stated that President Donald Trump did not play a role in the reduced sentencing recommendation of controversial political operative Roger Stone.
An extensive 85-page review released at approximately 10 AM on the 24th shows that it was a lack of communication amongst Senior Justice Department officials, not any influence or communication from former President Donald Trump, that caused the Department to change their initial stance.
A review of communications between Senior DOJ officials at the time revealed that there was minimal communication about the public Twitter statements of the President during the review of Stone’s sentencing.
The report from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General essentially boils the flip-flop on Stone’s sentencing recommendation to the flagrantly improper leadership of U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea, definitively stating that there was no interference between Trump officials and Department leadership.
The OIG shows that it “found no evidence that [Justice Department] leadership, Shea, or D.C. [U.S. Attorney’s Office] supervisors engaged in misconduct or violated Department policy in connection with the Stone sentencing,” also revealing that “Prosecutor 2’s belief that he (and the rest of the trial team) had been pressured to revise the memorandum for political reasons was not unreasonable.” The report concludes that, “the Department’s handling of the sentencing in the Stone case was highly unusual,” but did not violate “a law, rule, regulation, or Department policy.”
