quote:
President Trump praised his attorney general Wednesday for “taking charge” of the Roger Stone case. But if the events of the last several days tell us anything it’s that the person having the biggest influence on the proposed prison sentence for the convicted Trump ally is the president himself.
Despite the president’s insistence that he “didn’t speak to the Justice Department” and that he has “not been involved with that at all,” it’s abundantly clear that a single Trump tweet on Tuesday set in motion an unprecedented collapse of prosecutorial independence. In fact, the real “miscarriage of justice” is that Trump’s meddling, and Barr’s willingness to bend his department’s policies to serve Trump’s personal interests, will have a disastrous long-term effect on the public’s confidence in the essential fairness of federal prosecutors.
To understand how a more or less routine sentencing turned into a completely unnecessary political scandal, let’s look at the stunning series of events.
On Tuesday, four federal prosecutors filed a court document recommending that Roger Stone—who was convicted in November of lying to Congress and witness tampering—receive a sentence of seven to nine years in prison. Less than one day later, all four men either withdrew from the case or resigned, and a high-ranking supervisor filed a document asserting that the sentence recommended one day earlier was “excessive and unwarranted,” asking for a sentence that was “far less” severe.
The Justice Department’s initial recommendation was consistent with its usual policy, which is that in a “typical case,” a recommendation of a sentence within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines range is appropriate. DOJ policy requires “supervisory approval” to recommend a sentence above or below the guidelines range.
The policy does state that an “individualized assessment of the facts and circumstances of a particular case” can support a recommendation for a sentence below the guidelines range consistent with “the interests of justice and the public interest.”
In my experience, federal prosecutors handling high-profile cases discuss sentencing recommendations with their supervisors. It’s hard to believe that they signed the name of the United States Attorney appointed by Trump without that attorney’s approval. And no one can seriously believe that the Justice Department conducted an “individualized assessment” that changed its view one day after it recommended a guidelines sentence for Stone.
What changed between Monday and Tuesday? This could be it: “This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”—a tweet sent by Trump. For criminal defendants, it pays to have a friend in the Oval Office.
Although the DOJ tried to distance its decision from Trump’s tweet, it is unheard of for the Justice Department to recommend a sentence on one day and tell the judge one day later that what they recommended the day before was wrong.
It’s also highly unusual for all four prosecutors on a case to withdraw, apparently in protest of the politically motivated move. For the acting criminal chief of their office—a man three rungs above them on the organizational chart—to personally appear in the case and file the document reversing their position is just as unusual.