Trump denies altering Roger Stone's sentence and mocks 'ridiculous' Justice Department

'It would be a blatant abuse of power if President Trump has in fact intervened,' Adam Schiff says in blistering statement

Donald Trump denied instructing top Justice Department officials to recommend a softer sentence for Roger Stone, a former political adviser – but he defied his detractors by saying he has the right to do so.

The comment is sure to draw new concerns about Mr Trump's view of presidential powers just hours after he appeared to signal to DOJ leaders that they revise their nine-year sentencing recommendation for Stone. Federal prosecutors stated in a court ruling that the eccentric adviser had committed a "direct and brazen attack on the rule of law" when he lied to Congress and obstructed a federal investigation; he was convicted on both charges last year.

After summoning a group of journalists to the Oval Office for a military veterans event, Mr Trump was asked about whether he intervened in the Stone sentencing process.

In reply, he called the nine-year recommendation "ridiculous" and "an insult to our country." Those fiery comments came after several federal prosecutors resigned from the case over the reduced recommendation; it was not immediately clear if they stepped down due to objections over any perceived unjust presidential interference.

Senior White House officials denied even knowing about the resignations – even though they keep their office televisions tuned to multiple cable news networks at once. CNN and MSNBC were discussing the Stone matter and the resignations most of the afternoon.

As often is the case, Mr Trump got the controversial actions started with a morning tweet.

"This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them," Mr Trump tweeted. "Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!"

Some of the president's critics interpreted the latter part of the post to mean he might pardon his former campaign adviser. Stephanie Grisham, the top White House spokeswoman, did not respond to a request for clarification of the presidential tweet.

But after that tweet was posted, the Justice Department said that it would back off its initial recommendation that Mr Stone receive a nine-year sentence. Instead, the department said it would recommend a shorter prison stay.

But Mr Trump's tweet raised alarms about a sitting president interfering in the court system, something his predecessors have avoided so the Justice Department would remain as free as possible of political influences.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Democrats' lead impeachment manager in their unsuccessful attempt to convict and remove the president, issued a blistering statement.

"I do not take a position on the proper prison term for Mr Stone, but it would be a blatant abuse of power if President Trump has in fact intervened to reverse the recommendations of career prosecutors at the Department of Justice," Mr Schiff said.

"Doing so would send an unmistakable message that President Trump will protect those who lie to Congress to cover up his own misconduct," he added, "and that the Attorney General will join him in that effort."

Government ethics experts also slammed the president.

"As the authoritarian within starts to boil over, Trump is now attacking the ongoing work of federal prosecutors," Walter Shaub, who once was then-President Barack Obama's top White House ethics official. "The end goal is a world in which Trump associates, donors, key supporters and customers are free to commit crimes and those who challenge them are jailed or executed."

Notably, Mr Trump responded to the release of former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III's Russia election meddling report by telling Ukraine's new president to "do us a favour though." He was referring to his desire for the Ukraine government to announce investigations into top US political foes, including the Bidens.

He appears to have done similar with the Stone sentencing recommendation, wielding presidential power in a new way after feeling, in his words, "totally exonerated." In both cases, his detractors say the opposite is the case.