What Actually Happened In the Stone Case?
Emailer Jim just sent me an article that states categorically what happened in the Stone case with the sentencing memorandum. Here's the article: What Happened In the Roger Stone Case? 'Prosecutorial Misconduct' Says Defense Lawyer .
The defense lawyer who was consulted by the author happens to be Jesse Binnall , who is part of Sidney Powell's team defending Michael Flynn and is a high profile defense attorney in his own right. He has dealt with one of the four Stone prosecutors in the past.
Here's the relevant exchange:
I went to federal trial attorney Jesse Binnall for some answers. Binnall defends high-profile clients against political witch-hunts and has defended cases brought by Jonathan Kravis in the past. Currently, Binnall is defending Michael Flynn alongside Sidney Powell.
In your professional opinion, was anything unusual about the Roger Stone case?
"Roger Stone wouldn't ever have been a target of prosecution had he not been a Trump supporter. The President was absolutely right; the political underpinnings of this case are very disturbing. The events of the past few days show just how unusual this case really is."
Can you explain what exactly was unusual in recent days, and why?
"These four prosecutors filed a brief making a sentencing recommendation without getting approval from the chain of command. That is extraordinarily unusual in the DOJ. In fact, I can say it's unheard of at the DOJ; certainly, I've never heard of it. In practice, DOJ lawyers almost always get approval for everything they do."
Then, all four prosecutors on this case withdrew in succession, with one, Kravis, resigning from the DOJ entirely. This is unheard of. Why do you think they did it? Do you believe they planned and colluded?
"I think they knew exactly what was going to happen when they filed that sentencing recommendation, expecting they will be reined in for doing so. They could then play the role of martyrs by resigning from the case, with one of them resigning entirely from his job.
One of the most serious powers of a prosecutor is asking to deprive a defendant of freedom, requesting jail time. I think this [nine-year sentence] was an abuse of their power as prosecutors, to make a recommendation like this without making a departmental approval.
They knew leftist media would celebrate their disobedience and abuse of power. Leftist media has a history of fawning over people who martyr themselves for left-wing causes, just like Sally Yates. I think they wanted to leave the Roger Stone case with a bang.
So what the prosecutors did may not have been a direct lie, although I might argue that there is an implicit lie in submitting a recommendation to the judge bearing the name of USA Shea, when Shea had no knowledge of the recommendation. I don't know what the DoJ guidelines are for prosecutors in that regard, whether the prosecutors violated any departmental guidelines. I have to believe that they did. That explains why DoJ said they were "blindsided" by the recommendation, but that hardly seems to be a strong enough reaction.
No doubt we'll get the full story from Barr, who will be totally unapologetic when he testifies.