The Justice Department's internal watchdog released a report on Wednesday regarding the controversial handling of the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, a close ally of former President Donald Trump. The report highlighted that while the decision to reduce the initial proposed sentence was 'highly unusual,' there was no evidence of improper political influence.
The investigation was triggered when the Justice Department issued a revised sentencing memo for Stone, suggesting a significantly lower prison term than the original 7-9 years recommended by the trial team. This change came shortly after President Trump criticized the initial sentencing range on social media.
Following the revised memo, all four members of the Stone trial team resigned from the case, with one even leaving the Justice Department entirely. Stone was eventually sentenced to 40 months in prison, a sentence that was later commuted by Trump.
The inspector general's report revealed that career department lawyers held differing opinions on whether the initial sentencing recommendation was excessive. It also detailed how Aaron Zelinsky, a prosecutor on the case, testified to Congress about perceived pressure to show leniency to Stone, leading to internal conflicts within the Justice Department.
The report criticized the then-interim US Attorney in DC, Timothy Shea, for indecisiveness and poor communication in handling the sentencing recommendation. It noted that Attorney General Bill Barr played a role in suggesting a sentence below the recommended range, despite later expressing the need to 'fix' the higher recommendation.
The inspector general's findings shed light on the internal struggles and disagreements within the Justice Department over Stone's sentencing, with prosecutors feeling that political factors were influencing the case more than usual. The report emphasized the importance of prosecutors upholding the rule of law and truth in their actions.
