'Extraordinary': Expert details how Bill Barr's team gave 'steer' on Roger Stone sentence

The Department of Justice Inspector General released a report Wednesday that cleared Donald Trump and his staff from any wrongdoing in the sentencing of far-right firebrand Roger Stone. The information it gives about the part played by the officie of Trump's Attorney General William Barr, however, was described by one national security expert as "extraordinary — but not illegal."

Commentator and writer Marcy Wheeler sorted through the 85-page report into how Stone's sentencing drew questions.

Stone, who was a political consultant and Trump ally, was sentenced in 2020 after being convicted the year before of obstruction and witness tampering during the U.S. Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

The investigation centered on accusations that Trump interfered in Stone's sentencing — and concluded that he didn't.

Initially, the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C. considered a period of up to nine years in prison an appropriate sentencing guideline, the report notes.

"Disgraceful!" Trump wrote on X, then called Twitter. "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 second sentencing recommendation was then submitted, and Stone was sentenced to four years and four months in prison, the report notes. Stone later received a full and unconditional presidential pardon from Trump.

Aaron Zelinsky, a long-time prosecutor in the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office, told Congress that political pressure was being put on lawyers.

Thus began the four-year-long investigation.

Read also: Bill Barr: The GOP's master 'fixer' for decades exposed

Wheeler pointed out that then-AG Bill Barr, his deputy Jeffrey Rosen, and one of the assistant U.S. attorneys refused to cooperate with the investigation.

The report said, "One from DOJ leadership had been tracking the upcoming sentencing. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) also did not find evidence indicating that, after [Timothy] Shea became Interim U.S. Attorney and before the first memorandum was filed, DOJ leadership exerted pressure upon Shea or the D.C. [U.S. Attorney's Office] or otherwise inserted itself into the internal DC USAO discussions about the sentencing memorandum and recommendation.

"Instead, we found that Shea, unsure of what to do, decided to seek guidance from [Seth] DuCharme," then-acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District."

Shea was seeking guidance "days before the deadline, looking for a 'steer' on what sentencing position to take," it explained.

Based on the "available testimony," Barr was not working on Stone's sentencing. Instead, Shea reached out to DuCharme for advice.

"After the first call between Shea and DuCharme, Shea's Chief of Staff had his own brief conversation with DuCharme about the upcoming Stone sentencing. On Wednesday, Feb. 5, Shea and his chief of staff attended three meetings (unrelated to the Stone case) in the main Justice building and, while there, Shea's chief of staff ran into DuCharme in the hallway," the inspector general report said.

"According to Shea's chief of staff, one of them mentioned the Stone sentencing coming up, and DuCharme said something to the effect of: 'I'll tell you what I told [Shea]. Prosecutors are not experts on sentencing .... Your job as the ... leaders of the office is to be reasonable.' DuCharme told us he did not recall this hallway interaction with Shea's chief of staff," the report said.

Wheeler connected the dots in the conversations showing that there was coordination happening — but it wasn't illegal.

The final report states: "The [Inspector General's office] did not find evidence that the actions and decisions of DOJ leadership or [U.S. Attorney's office in Washington D.C.] officials in the preparation and filing of the first and second sentencing memoranda in the Roger Stone case were affected by improper political considerations or influence."

Read the full thread here.