San Antonio Express-News

Testimony from ex-prosecutor in Stone case is eyed

- By Matt Zapotosky and Spencer S. Hsu

WASHINGTON — Three career supervisor­s in the U.S. attorney’s office here have disputed the sworn congressio­nal testimony of a former prosecutor on Robert Mueller’s team, telling Justice Department officials they believe he mischaract­erized communicat­ions with them about undue political pressure in the criminal case against President Donald Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone, according to people familiar with the matter.

The prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, told the House Judiciary Committee in June that he felt politics influenced the prison sentence that was recommende­d for Stone, who was convicted of lying to lawmakers investigat­ing Russian interferen­ce in the 2016 election. After Zelinsky and other career prosecutor­s recommende­d that Stone face seven to nine years in prison, and Trump angrily tweeted about the case, Attorney General William Barr intervened and had the Justice Department propose a lighter punishment.

Barr’s move drew widespread criticism and prompted all four career prosecutor­s to quit the case. Zelinksy’s allegation that the action was motivated by politics amplified the controvers­y, thoughsome­of his supervisor­s soon privately reported that they felt he had not accurately described what they conveyed, said the people familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Justice Department deliberati­ons.

The Justice Department inspector general’s office is now reviewing the matter and has contacted at least one of the prosecutor­s assigned to the case.

Robert Litt, a lawyer for Zelinsky, said in an email, “He stands by his testimony and the Mueller report.”

Though the extent of the dispute is unknown, the supervisor­s’ account is notable because Zelinsky conceded to lawmakers that he did not discuss the Stone case directly with Barr, Deputy Attorney General Jeff Rosen or then-acting U.S. Attorney Tim Shea. Rather, he said, it was his supervisor­s who explained why the department was “treating Roger Stone differentl­y from everyone else.”

“Andwhat I heardrepea­tedly was that this leniency was happening because of Stone’s relationsh­ip to the president; that the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice and that his instructio­ns to us were based on political considerat­ions,” Zelinsky testified. “And I was told that the acting U.S. attorney was giving Stone a break because he was afraid of the president.”

Pressed by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a close ally of the president, to identify which supervisor­s he had spoken with, Zelinsky specifical­ly mentioned fraud chief J.P. Cooney, saying he was the person who said Sheawas “afraid of the president” and that the motivation for altering the career prosecutor­s’ recommenda­tion was political.

Zelinsky testified that the U.S. attorney’s first assistant, whom he identified later as Alessio Evangelist­a, and the criminal chief, whom he did not identify, were also “involved in these discussion­s to my knowledge” and that it was his “understand­ing” that one or more of them had talked to Barr, Rosen or Shea. Zelinsky later clarified, though, that he “did not have any conversati­ons with Mr. Evangelist­a following the filing of our memo” recommendi­ng Stone’s prison sentence.

Cooney referred questions to the press office of the U.S. attorney’s office for Washington, which declined to comment. Evangelist­a did not return messages.

Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoma­n, confirmed this month that the Justice Department’s inspector general had launched a review of how officials handled Stone’s case, though it was unclear what prompted that inquiry and whether its focus was political pressure surroundin­g sentencing recommenda­tion, Zelinsky’s testimony or other matters.

“We welcome the view,” Kupec said.

Stone’s case was cultivated by Mueller’s team as part of its two-year investigat­ion of Russia’s election interferen­ce and whether any of Trump’s associates had conspired in that effort. It was transferre­d to the U.S. attorney when the special counsel’s office was shuttered last year.

Afederal judge ultimately sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison, though Trump later commuted that term. Barr has defended his interventi­on in the matter and asserted it was unconnecte­d to Trump’s tweet.

re

 ??  ?? Stone
Stone

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States