Investigation into Commutation of Roger Stone’s Sentence Finds No Evidence of Political Influence
An investigation by a Justice Department watchdog found no evidence that politics played an improper role in the decision to commute the sentence of Roger Stone, a close ally of former President Donald Trump, according to a report released Wednesday.
Timeline of Events Leading to Commutation
The inspector general launched an investigation in 2020 after the four attorneys prosecuting Stone withdrew from the case when senior Justice Department officials denied their request and lowered the jail time Stone sought. Stone was later sentenced to 40 months in prison, and Trump later commuted his sentence.
Career prosecutors initially proposed a sentence of seven to nine years in prison for Stone, who was found guilty of lying to Congress, tampering with witnesses, and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Prosecutors later filed a second brief, saying the initial recommendations were too harsh.
Findings of the Inspector General’s Report
The inspector general found that then-Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea initially sought advice from senior Justice Department officials on how to handle Stone’s sentencing recommendation. Shea then reportedly met with then-Attorney General William Barr on the day the sentencing recommendation was due, and the two discussed whether a sentence below federal guidelines was appropriate.
When Barr realized the request was not part of what he and Shea had discussed, he told Justice Department officials that the issue needed to be “addressed,” the report said. The incident came after Trump blasted the requested sentence on Twitter as “terrible and unfair.”
The inspector general said the Justice Department’s handling of Stone’s sentencing was “highly unusual.” But regulators blamed the incidents on Shea’s “poor leadership” and said there was no evidence that Justice Department leadership acted inappropriately or violated department policies.
Shea and Barr’s involvement in the sentencing recommendation “raised questions and raised questions about the Department of Justice’s decision-making given their status as political appointees in the administration and Stone’s relationship with the then-President,” the report noted.
Ultimately, the inspector general’s report highlighted the importance of discretion and judgment in such matters, emphasizing the impact on public perceptions of the federal justice system and the integrity of the Department of Justice.
