The Justice Department Pressured Prosecutors to Go Easy on Roger Stone, Attorney Says

“Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the President.”

Roger Stone, arrives at court for sentencing on February 20, 2020 in Washington.Mark Wilson/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A Justice Department lawyer who prosecuted Roger Stone is alleging that attorneys involved in the case were pressured by their superiors to “cut Stone a break” due to his relationship with the president. 

Stone was convicted of five counts of making false statements—as well as obstruction of Congress and witness tampering—after lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts in 2016 to contact WikiLeaks regarding Democratic emails hacked by Russia. Evidence compiled by special counsel Robert Mueller showed that Stone consulted personally with Donald Trump and senior Trump campaign officials about Stone’s efforts to glean information on WikiLeaks’ plans for disseminating the stolen emails.

“What I heard—repeatedly—was that Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the President,” Aaron Zelinsky says in written testimony submitted to the House Judiciary Committee ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday. “I was told that the Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Timothy Shea, was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice to cut Stone a break, and that the US Attorney’s sentencing instructions to us were based on political considerations. I was also told that the acting US Attorney was giving Stone such unprecedentedly favorable treatment because he was ‘afraid of the President.'”

Shea was installed as acting head of the DC federal prosecutors’ office by Attorney General William Barr after Barr removed former US Attorney Jessie Liu. Shea is now the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. This alleged meddling in the Stone case appears to be part of a pattern. Barr later moved to drop a case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had already pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States. And late last Friday, Barr ousted the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, who was overseeing several cases related to Trump associates. Spokespeople for the DOJ, the DC US attorney’s office, and the DEA did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Zelinsky’s testimony.

Zelinsky describes how Shea and other Justice Department officials pressured the front-line prosecutors in the case to recommend a more lenient sentence for Stone than those prosecutors believed was fair. Zelinsky says their jobs were threatened. “We were told by a supervisor that the US Attorney had political reasons for his instructions, which our supervisor agreed was unethical and wrong,” he says. “However, we were instructed that we should go along with the US Attorney’s 10 instructions, because this case was ‘not the hill worth dying onand that we could ‘lose our jobs’ if we did not toe the line.”

The prosecutors initially suggested that Stones should receive more than seven years in prison. But the day after a 1:48 am tweet in which Trump complained that the recommendation was “horrible and very unfair,” Zelinsky says he learned that the department would issue a new memo recommending a lighter sentence.

In failing to adhere to normal sentencing guidelines, the department “treated Roger Stone differently and more leniently in ways that are virtually, if not entirely, unprecedented,” Zelinsky says. He and other lawyers who prosecuted Stone withdrew from the case in protest of this political interference.

It’s not clear if the DOJ reversal actually affected Stone’s sentence. US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison, citing “the egregious nature of Stone’s conduct.” Cleary referring to Trump, Jackson said it was important that the sentence not be influenced by anyone whose “political career was aided by the defendant. And surely not someone who has personal involvement in the events underlying the case.”

Read Zelinsky’s prepared testimony:


WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate