The Roger Stone Affair: An Examination of the Legal, Normative, and Ethical Restraints on Presidential Interference in Prosecutorial Decisions

AuthorJace Jenican
PositionJ.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2022); B.A., Chapman University (2019)
Pages1057-1072
The Roger Stone Affair: An Examination of the
Legal, Normative, and Ethical Restraints on
Presidential Interference in Prosecutorial Decisions
JACE JENICAN*
INTRODUCTION
The Trump administration has undoubtedly been a disruptive force in
American politics and law. And for many of his voters, that was the point.
1
But in
the area of criminal justice, President Trump’s tendency to violate traditional
restraints on presidential power has revealed just how susceptible to improper po-
litical influence federal prosecutions are. The President, recently through
Attorney General Bill Barr, has repeatedly meddled in prosecutions against his
political and personal allies.
2
One of the most egregious examples of this conduct
was the Roger Stone affair. Stone was convicted for lying to Congress about his
relationship with those involved in the Russian government’s hack-and-leak
operation that was designed to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.
3
During
Stone’s sentencing, the President and his political appointees interfered with the
sentencing recommendation of the career prosecutors in an attempt to reduce
Stone’s sentence.
4
President Trump eventually commuted Stone’s sentence and
then pardoned him during his final days in office.
5
Traditionally, the Department of Justice has been at least partially independent
from the President, largely out of policy concerns regarding political influence in
* J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2022); B.A., Chapman University (2019).
© 2021, Jace Jenican.
1. See Luciana Lopez & Michelle Conlin, Fed up with Washington, Trump’s ‘deplorables’ shake up the elite,
REUTERS (Nov. 9, 2016, 3:51 A.M.), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voters/fed-up-with-
washington-trumps-deplorables-shake-up-the-elite-idUSKBN1341AB [https://perma.cc/9PCS-DNZP] (quoting
Trump voters who claim their support for him is at least in part due to his promises to shake upWashington).
2. See, e.g., Sarah N. Lynch, Democrats accuse ‘president’s fixer’ Barr of political meddling in U.S. justice
system, REUTERS (June 24, 2020, 12:49 P.M.), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-justice/
democrats-accuse-presidents-fixer-barr-of-political-meddling-in-u-s-justice-system-idUSKBN23V2KT [https://
perma.cc/3LK6-AYHV].
3. Verdict Form, United States v. Stone, No. 19-0018 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2019), 2019 WL 6117547.
4. See Mikhalia Fogel, What Really Happened at the Roger Stone Sentencing, LAWFARE (Feb. 21, 2020,
4:48 P.M.), https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-really-happened-roger-stone-sentencing [https://perma.cc/
NG2V-FZXT].
5. Amita Kelly, Ryan Lucas & Vanessa Romo, Trump Pardons Roger Stone, Paul Manafort And Charles
Kushner, NPR (Dec. 23, 2020, 7:38 P.M.), https://www.npr.org/2020/12/23/949820820/trump-pardons-roger-
stone-paul-manafort-and-charles-kushner [https://perma.cc/FS6E-XH8V].
1057
federal prosecutions.
6
The ostensibly political interference in Stone’s sentencing
recommendation undermines this principle, but does not seem to obviously con-
travene any statutory or constitutional mandate.
7
What it does seem to contravene
are the norms and ethical practices that have established the tradition of prosecu-
torial independence.
This Note will begin by detailing the Special Counsel investigation that
spawned the case against Roger Stone, the indictment against Stone, and his trial
in Part I. It will also detail the twists and turns following the government’s initial
sentencing memorandum that culminated in the eventual commutation of Stone’s
sentence. Part II will continue by examining the legal, normative, and ethical
framework underpinning the relationship between the President, Attorney
General, and career prosecutors. In light of these principles, the Note will con-
clude with Part III by examining the effectiveness of these safeguards in the con-
text of the Stone affair and evaluate the behavior of each of the actors in this
scandal.
I. THE ROGER STONE AFFAIR
A. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION
The Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the United States presidential
election began to surface in the summer of 2016.
8
The Democratic National
Committee (DNC) announced that it had been hacked in June, and hacked docu-
ments were released later that month.
9
In July, October, and November of that
year, Russian government actors using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0worked
with Wikileaks to strategically leak documents obtained through the DNC hack
and from a later hack of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
10
The
hacking operations were quickly attributed to the Russian government by public
reporting which was then confirmed by multiple federal agencies in the fall.
11
Meanwhile, the FBI was notified in July by a foreign government that Trump
campaign official George Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that
country that the Russian government had assisted the campaign in gathering dam-
aging information on Hillary Clinton.
12
The FBI quickly opened an investigation
into whether any Trump campaign officials were conspiring with the Russian
government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
13
6. See Bruce A. Green & Rebecca Roiphe, Can The President Control The Department of Justice?, 70 ALA.
L. REV. 1, 13 (2018).
7. See id. at 2.
8. ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, VOLUME I, at 1 (U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 2019) [hereinafter THE MUELLER REPORT I].
9. THE MUELLER REPORT I, supra note 8, at 1.
10. Id. at 175–76.
11. Id. at 1.
12. Id.
13. Id.
1058 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS [Vol. 34:1057

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT