Stone Gets Over Three Years for Trump Cover-Up

After a week of political turmoil that included the unprecedented withdrawal of an entire team of federal prosecutors, extraordinary intervention by the Attorney General, and presidential tweets, longtime Trump associate Roger Stone was sentenced to three years and four months in prison for lying to Congress and tampering with a witness to protect the President, Trump, who issued some high profile pardons earlier this week, said he was holding off

on a pardon for Stone. And I'm following this very closely, and I want to see it play out to what's fullest, because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration in my opinion. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints a partner Mt. Carter in English, So, Bob, this was less than the seven to nine years the original prosecutors

initially asked for. What's your reaction to the sentence? The sentence that was handed down today by Judge Jackson is pretty much in line with what most prosecutors expected in this case. Prosecutors initially asked for a sentence in the seven to nine year range. That was viewed by some people as overly harsh, although it was clearly supported by

the guidelines. Controversy erupted when William Barr, the Attorney General, stepped in, and ultimately there was a second sentencing memorandum that was sent into the court which did not ask for any particular sentence and in fact left the sentencing up to the judge, but it did suggest that a sentence in the three to four year range was more reasonable and more in line with other cases like this.

That is exactly where Judge Jackson ultimately ended up here, though I think the judge from the very beginning had her own mind made up as to where this was going to go, and did not necessarily pay close attention to either of the sentencing memorandum that were submitted by the Department of Justice. After the interference by Attorney General bar and the tweets by the President, the sent dancing is probably going to be picked Apart for any signs

that the judge was not independent. Do you see any signs that the judge was not independent? I think the judge here demonstrated her independence in a number of ways. First of all, she addressed the politics of this sentencing, which I found to be unusual. Generally judges will stay

away from the political winds that may swirl around. In particular, sentence on this case was even more political than most by Judge Jackson really took that issue head on, making some statements that were pretty surprising and pretty direct, where she said, for example, that Stone was not being prosecuted for standing up for the president, he was being prosecuted

for covering up for the president. She also called out the Attorney General William Barr in a sense in which she mentioned that his intervention in this case was unprecedented. So she took on those political issues, and then she methodically went through all of the misconduct that was reuben in her view by prosecutors during the trial, and I think really laid out a very damning case of bad

conduct and illegal conduct by Roger Stone. Although ultimately she sentenced him to a sentence that was less than the harshest guideline sentence that prosecutors had originally requested, she said, the truth still exists, the truth still matters. Roger Stone's insistence that it doesn't, his belligerence, his pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions to the foundations of our democracy. Was that for roger

Stone or was that for President Trump? I think what the judgment was really addressing there was the rule of law. She wanted to make it clear that this decision, this sentence that she was heading down today, was being done on objective facts. That she believes that, as she said, the truth still matters, and that our institutions and the foundations of our democracy in fact depend upon truth telling.

And she viewed roger Stone as somebody who played fast and loose with the facts and in some cases, in her view, lied directly to the court when certain issues came up during the trial. So I think she was trying to deliver a message not only to rodger Stone, but to the general public that, in her view, this was a case very much about telling the truth and if you lie, if you lie in court, if you lie to mislead Congress, they're going to be serious consequences.

What I found interesting is that she applied enhancements based on things such as Stone's obstruction of the case, including his use of social media to post a photo of the judge where the cross hairs and the prosecutors didn't object. These are the new prosecutors coming in on a new

sentencing memo, and yet they supported the enhancements. Everybody was watching very closely the new team of prosecutors who came in to handle the sentencing after the four original p secutors all resigned from the case in protest over the changing of the sentencing recommendation. Really, at the end of the day, the new prosecutors came in and didn't do much very differently than what the original prosecutors had endorsed.

In fact, the prosecutor who was handling the sentencing hearing endorsed the same technical logic that the prior prosecutors had used in generating their recommendation of the first sentencing memorandum, and all of the enhancements that the original prosecutors had originally requested were also supported by the second team of prosecutors. The most critical of those enhancements was the one where the original team of prosecutors had suggested that Roger Stone

had threatened a key witness in the case. Uh This was an individual named Randy Cretico, who was a New York radio host who had critical information to bolster the government's case against Stone and prosecutors argue that there was an enhancement that moved to sentencing recommendation from three to four years all up to seven to nine years based upon the belief that he had physically threatened to witness.

Prosecutors interestingly did not back off from that enhancement, and in fact, the judge made a finding that that threat was real, despite the fact that Critico had actually written a letter to the court saying that although he had been the target of that threat, he never, in fact actually felt threatened by Stone, that he knew Stone to be somebody who would make those kind of comments but

never follow through. The sentencing of long time Republican operative and Trump associate Roger Stone was one of the most high profile sentencings in quite a while, capping a week

of legal drama and political turmoil. My guest as former federal prosecutor Robert Mint's a partner McCarter in English, So Bob, we were discussing the new prosecutors who had to come into court for the first time on the day of sentencing and face the judge after the initial team of prosecutors Withdrew and the judge did say to assistant U. S. Attorney John Crabbe, I fear that you know less about this case than possibly anybody else in the courtroom, and

she asked them to explain what happened here, basically, did you buy their explanation? Well, that was another example I think of the judge really taking these issues head on, not wanting to dance around what had been the big build up to this sentence in this case. And so she did ask the prosecutor, what is your position today? She emphasized, noting that it had changed from the prior recommendation, and she asked for an explanation as to why the

recommendation had changed. And I thought it was very interesting that the prosecutor in the case they did that the prior prosecutors had in fact received approval from the U. S. Attorney Tim Shay to make the recommendation of seven to nine years that they did, and that that filing was

in good faith. So he actually stood up for the prior team of prosecutors and then gave a somewhat vague explanation which he described as a miscommunication between the Attorney General, William Barr and the new U. S. Attorney in the District of Columbia Tim Shay that there was some miscommunication here as to what the expectations were from the Attorney General and that that's why the original sentencing memorandum recommending seven to nine years is ultimately withdrawn in favor of

the more lenient recommendation of approximately three to four years. It's unclear whether the court necessarily bought that complete explanation, but I think it's interesting that she asked the prosecutor to take her through what essentially went on behind the scenes in the Department of Justice leading up to the sentencing. At every sentencing, the defendant has an opportunity to address the court before the sentence is handed down. In this case,

Roger Stone decided not to say anything. Why not take this opportunity to put something on the record or make a final appeal to the judge. That's an interesting question, uh, As you said, defendants always have the opportunity to address the court prior to sentencing. That is almost always the

very last stage of the sentence thing proceeding. After prosecutors make their arguments for what the appropriate sentence should be, the defense team gets to make their other arguments as to what the sentencing should be, and the last thing the judge hears prior to actually handing down the sentence is from the defendant him or herself. In this case,

Roger Stone chose not to address the court. Most of the time, defendants take that opportunity because it's their chance to humanize themselves once again in front of the court, remind the court that they are fathers and mothers and husbands and wives, and to try, essentially and last amitted effort to sway the judge into perhaps a more lenient sentence. In this case, Roger Stone did not take that opportunity. It's unclear as to why President Trump was tweeting during

the sentencing. The speculation is high that Hill pardon Stone, especially since that slate of high profile clemencies this week. What's your take on that. Is it likely that Stone will never serve a day in prison? Well, there's a couple of issues here. The judge did agree to leave Mr Stone out of jail pending a motion for a new trial. There's been some allegation that the jury for

women in this case was in some way biased. That's going to be a motion that's going to be made by the defense team, and that the judge said she will agree to hear before he were to ask Mr Stone to surrender. The other issue is that undoubtedly if they don't get a new trial, there will be an appeal in this case, and she may also decide to leave him out of jail pending the appeal. So it's unclear when or if Mr Stone will ever spend a day in jail. Now, let's talk about his appeal for

a moment. His earlier requests for a new trial alleging bias by a different juror who is an employee of the I R S was denied by the judge. This one is under seal, but the indications are that they're going to claim the jury four person was biased. If they have proof that the very four person was not forthcoming in her jury questionnaire, is that enough for a reversal.

That's an interesting question because you have to remember first here that if a defendant is going to be convicted, there has to be unanimous agreement among all the jurors as to each count that the defendant is in fact guilty. So the jury four person is only one vote. But on the other hand, if the juror lies during what's called boarder, the questioning of jurors when they are selected to sit in the jury, and the judge finds that it's a material misstatement, it is quite possible that Mr

Stone could wind up getting a new trial. The interference by William Barr seems unnecessary. You know that a judge doesn't just buy the prosecution's recommendation, especially a judge who sat through a trial and who seems to know this defendant pretty well. So why did Barr even feel the

need to intervene. That's a great question because every federal set in federal court for criminal cases governed by something called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which is a large book that gives weighted factors to all kinds of issues that ultimately will increase the potential for a prison term. For example, the amount of money that's been stolen, or whether witnesses have used obstructive tactics during the trial, or whether witness lies during the trial. All of these are ways that

a defendant sentence can be enhanced. In every single case, you have prosecutors going through their sentencing guidelines and then making a recommendation based on the facts of each case, which of course are always unique, and trying to argue to the court which enhancements apply in order to get a higher sentence. The defense, not surprisingly is going to ask for the most lenient sentence. In this case, they

ask for probation. At the end of the day, the judge has to first make decisions about which enhancement apply and where the guideline sentence will come out, but they no longer have to follow those guideline sentences. In other words, the judge can ultimately make a conclusion that the seven to nine year range for a sentence is what the guidelines will say, but still sentence a defendant to whatever

term he or she believes is fair. So in this case, the judge handed down a sentence set was below the guideline range. And I think really all of this chaos that went on leading up to the trial, the initial sentencing memo, the second sentencing memo, all of the suggestions that there was political influence ultimately played no role at all in the sentence that judged Jackson handed down here.

I think she had a very clear view in her mind of what roder Stone did, of how he conducted himself both before and during the trial, and she knew exactly where she was going to come out in this sentencing, regardless of the position that the government took or that the defense took in this case. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law. Bob. That's Robert Mant's a partner M Carter in English. Remember you can always listen to the latest

legal news anytime on our Bloomberg Law podcast. Just go to iTunes, so cloud, or Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm John Russo and this is Bloomberg than