There are two problems with this position.
1) You are assuming, without evidence or argument, that the initial sentencing recommendation wasn't excessive.
It wasn't excessive.
In the stone case you had multiple felonies which (if the actual maximums were applied) could in theory have resulted in
decades of jail time. Furthermore:
- One of stone's crimes involved a threat to kill a witnesses' dog. In general, a crime that involves the threat of violence is going to be treated a lot more seriously
- Stone had previously violated a gag order and posted an image of the judge next to cross-hairs... again another reference to violence, as well as an indication that Stone was not treating the proceedings with the proper respect, and showed no remorse
- The Stone recommendation is consistent with the sentences given to others who engages in similar crimes.
So yeah, a 7-9 year sentence recommendation is not excessive at all.
Here is the sentencing recommendation. The details about the factors they applied starts on page 16.
https://www.axios.com/roger-stone-s...aks-0660e47c-dd6f-40e5-ab1d-b298ffc6fd14.html
2) The DOJ says they reached a decision to revise the sentencing recommendation before Trump tweeted.
First of all, not sure why exactly we should be trusting the DOJ. After all, they were the ones who gave us the whole Mueller report summary which was, by all accounts, wildly inaccurate.
Secondly, even if they decided to revise the sentencing recommendation before the Trump tweet does not mean that Trump didn't contact them earlier in the day to demand the changes.
So unless there's a conspiracy within the DOJ (and not just Barr) to lie about what happened, then no, it cannot be what you're claiming it is.
You do realize that Trump appointed more than just Barr to the DOJ. He has also appointed a deputy AG (Rosen, a man who had no experience as a prosecutor and who was picked by Barr to be his lapdog), a Solicitor General (Francisco, who had to get an ethics waiver to take the job) and multiple assistant AGs.
Finding a group of like-minded individuals to interfere in the Stone case among all those Trump appointees (many with questionable backgrounds) would not be difficult. This is not a case where you have a bunch of long-term dedicated public servants that Trump and Barr would have to fool. Many are probably just as corrupt as Trump/Barr (or at the very least complicit).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump#Department_of_Justice