DOJ yesterday: "A sentence consistent with the Guidelines is appropriate based on the nature and extent of Stone’s conduct, the length of time it transpired (nearly two
years), and the matter of significant national importance that it centered upon."
years), and the matter of significant national importance that it centered upon."
Having a hard time thinking of a case in which DOJ said a guideline sentence would be inappropriate - let alone grossly so - for a defendant who went to trial and didn't cooperate. Maybe they exist, but they're rare.
It could be that DOJ now thinks its guideline calculation was too aggressive, or that some enhancements shouldn't apply. In this case, however, it wasn't just DOJ that thought 7 1/4 to 9 was the right guideline range - the court probation office did too. From Stone's memo: 
Stone's lawyers, obviously, say that calculation is wrong. And they have a not-bad argument that he shouldn't be jammed up -- a lot -- for obstructive threats, because Randy Credico never really thought Stone was going to kill him or kidnap his dog.
Stone's lawyers say the guideline range -- what courts say is presumptively reasonable -- is 15-21 months in prison. But they say he should be sentenced to probation.
usatoday.com/documents/6773…
usatoday.com/documents/6773…
These kinds of disagreements over sentencing are very usual. They happen every day.
DOJ changing its mind and arguing for a lower sentence is exceptionally unusual. Which raises the question of why it's doing that in this one particular case .....
DOJ changing its mind and arguing for a lower sentence is exceptionally unusual. Which raises the question of why it's doing that in this one particular case .....
For what it's worth, it's DOJ's policy to seek guideline sentences. Prosecutors need permission to do otherwise. From a memo by former AG Sessions expressly undoing the Obama-era practice of structuring some cases to produce lower sentencing ranges ->
