DOJ's Observation on Roger Stone's Sentence Proposal Alteration: Unusual Yet Non-Political

The Justice Department's internal watchdog has deemed the decision to alter the sentencing proposal for Roger Stone, a former ally of Donald Trump, as "highly unusual." However, the investigation did not uncover evidence of improper political influence. This inquiry was initiated after the Justice Department submitted a second sentencing memo for Stone, which recommended a significantly lighter sentence than the initial 7-9 year range proposed by his trial team. The change followed critical tweets from Trump and coincided with the resignation of all four members of the trial team. Stone was ultimately sentenced to 40 months in prison, a sentence later commuted by Trump. The inspector general's report indicated that even career lawyers within the department acknowledged that opinions could vary on the appropriateness of the original sentencing recommendation. Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted that while there was no conclusive evidence of political interference, the beliefs expressed by trial team member Aaron Zelinsky were not unreasonable given the context of the situation. The report highlighted the involvement of then-Attorney General Bill Barr and interim U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea, suggesting that their actions raised questions about the decision-making process within the department. Barr reportedly expressed a need to "fix" the higher sentencing recommendation shortly after it was filed, indicating a pre-existing stance on the matter. The report criticized Shea's leadership, citing indecisiveness and poor communication as contributing factors to the controversy. As the investigation unfolded, prosecutors felt that their recommendations for Stone were subjected to unusual scrutiny, leading to concerns about the integrity of the legal process. Zelinsky's attorney expressed satisfaction that the report confirmed his client's truthful account of the events surrounding the case.