In April, President Trump pardoned I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Jr., top aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was convicted in an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Now the president should do the same thing for Dwight L. Hammond, Jr., 76, and his son Steven Dwight Hammond, 49, long-suffering ranchers in rural Oregon.

The Hammonds were charged with terrorism and sentenced in 2015 to five years in prison, despite the outraged protests of ranchers and other citizens.

The Oregonian, the state’s left-leaning newspaper, said in a January 2016 editorial: “The Hammonds broke the law and deserve to be punished” but said their sentence was excessive and that the president (then Barack Obama) “should consider” granting them clemency.

The Hammonds are the victims of one of the most egregious, indefensible and intolerable instances of prosecutorial misconduct in history. Their situation cries out for justice that can come only from President Trump. 

The Hammonds’ crime? They set a legally permissible fire on their own property, which accidentally burned out of control onto neighboring federal land. Normally, that is an infraction covered by laws governing trespassing, and the guilty party is subject to paying for damages caused by the fire – if the neighboring land belongs to an ordinary citizen.

But not when a vindictive federal government is involved.

The Hammonds are cattle ranchers in southeastern Oregon’s Harney County, the state’s largest, but home to fewer than 8,000 people who eke out a living. The federal government owns 75 percent of the land in the county.

Congress passed the 1996 law in response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to “deter terrorism.” Lawmakers did not have in mind a rancher’s efforts to eradicate noxious weeds or to prevent the spread of a lightning fire onto valuable crops.

The Hammond Ranch is near the unincorporated community of Diamond, with fewer than 100 residents. Located on Steens Mountain since it was established in 1964, the ranch is made up of 12,872 acres of deeded private land. Dwight Hammond began running the ranch in his early 20s; for his son, it is the only life he knows.

Like most Western ranches in federally dominated counties, the Hammond Ranch holds grazing rights on nearby federal land. In this case, that is 26,421 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

In the “high desert” environment of Harney County – and throughout the West – federal, state and private landowners use controlled or prescribed burns for prairie restoration, forest management and to reduce the buildup of underbrush that could fuel much bigger fires.

But sometimes the controlled fires get out of control and sweep onto neighbors’ land. That is legally deemed a trespass, and the landowner who set the fire is liable for any damages.

Only the federal government has the power to cite the trespasser criminally for his or her actions. That is what happened to the Hammonds.

It did not happen in a vacuum. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has long coveted the Hammond Ranch for inclusion in its surrounding Malheur Wildlife Refuge. The federal agency pressured members of the Hammond family for decades to follow all of their neighbors in selling their property to the federal government.

For their part, Bureau of Land Management officials, agents and armed rangers too often have had an adversarial and thorny relationship with ranchers and grazing permittees, which worsened during the Obama administration.

In 2001, after alerting the Bureau of Land Management, the Hammonds set a legal fire to eradicate noxious weeds. It spread onto 139 acres of vacant federal land. According to a government witness, the fire actually improved the federal land, as natural fires often do.

In 2006, Steven Hammond started another prescribed fire in response to several blazes ignited by a lightning storm near his family’s field of winter feed. The counter-blaze burned a single acre of federal land. According to Steven Hammond’s mother, “the backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home.”

“We thought we lived in America where you have one trial and you have one sentencing.” She said that federal officials “just keep playing political, legal mind games with people and people’s lives.”

The Bureau of Land Management took a different view. It filed a report with Harney County officials alleging several violations of Oregon law. However, after a review of the evidence, the Harney County district attorney dropped all charges in 2006.   

The Bureau of Land Management did not give up. In 2011, federal prosecutors – referencing both the 2001 and 2006 fires – charged the Hammonds with violating the ‘‘Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” which carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years.

Mugshots of the father and his son accompanied headlines calling them “arsonists.” Their wife and mother said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me.”

In 2012, the Hammonds went to trial. As the jury was deliberating, they agreed not to appeal the jury verdicts in exchange for the government dismissal of a slew of ancillary charges, including “conspiracy” to commit the offense.

The jury found both Hammonds guilty of the 2001 fire and Steven Hammond guilty of the 2006 blaze; he was acquitted on charges the 2006 fire did more than $1,000 in damages.

At sentencing, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan concluded the fires did not endanger people or property. He declared that the law the Hammonds were convicted of violating was aimed at more serious conduct than their case involved.

Hogan added that the Hammonds had “tremendous” character, and stated that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution – barring “cruel and unusual punishment” – justified a sentence below the statutory minimum sentence.

Consequently, Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months in prison and his son to a year and a day. Both served their sentences and then returned home.

But the federal government was not finished. Federal prosecutors, contending the agreement did not bar them from further action, appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, without oral arguments, quickly issued a terse ruling reversing the Oregon federal district court.

“Given the seriousness of arson,” the appellate court ruled, “a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The Hammonds are both still in prison today.

Congress passed the 1996 law under which the Hammonds were convicted in response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York City and the 1995 federal building bombing in Oklahoma City in order to “deter terrorism.”  Lawmakers did not have in mind a rancher’s efforts to eradicate noxious weeds or to prevent the spread of a lightning fire onto valuable crops.

That apparently did not matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and officials who are supposed to provide adult supervision to prevent personal animus, agency vendettas and prosecutorial abuse.

“We didn’t think it could happen,” said Susie Hammond, the family matriarch. She is still trying to hold onto the ranch, upon which four local families other than the Hammonds rely. “We thought we lived in America where you have one trial and you have one sentencing.” She said that federal officials “just keep playing political, legal mind games with people and people’s lives.”

Now it’s up to President Trump to deliver justice to the Hammonds – something the federal government has long denied them.

The Stormy Daniels lawyer who tweeted bombshell allegations this week against Trump attorney Michael Cohen is now facing questions about his own business dealings — as well as how he obtained Cohen's bank records. 

Since Michael Avenatti cited financial records to accuse Cohen of receiving $500,000 from a Russian oligarch-tied company — and other media outlets detailed that and other transactions — a frenzy has erupted over Cohen’s dealings at the dawn of the Trump administration. The records suggest Cohen's firm was paid huge sums for insight into the Trump administration.

AT&T and pharmaceutical giant Novartis, both of which paid Cohen's firm, also said this week they had been questioned by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team about their relationship with him. The lawyer is under investigation, in part over a $130,000 payment to Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with President Trump a decade ago. 

But Avenatti has also faced scrutiny over his business dealings. 

Recently, a complaint was filed against him to the California State Bar Association regarding his role in purchasing Tully's Coffee several years ago through an entity called Global Baristas. 

The complaint, first obtained and reported by The Seattle Times, was filed by attorney David Nold of Bellevue, Wash. The complaint says Avenatti and Global Baristas faced a lien for unpaid federal taxes worth roughly $5 million, claiming taxes were withheld from workers' paychecks but not paid to the government. The complaint from Nold, as posted by The Seattle Times, called into question Avenatti's “fitness to practice law.”

Since the coffee chain purchase, Tully's has shuttered its stores (though the closures were described as temporary) as Global Baristas has dealt with numerous lawsuits. 

The paper trail for that deal is maddeningly complex. 

Fox News obtained a copy of the notice of federal tax lien in question, sent to “Global Baristas US LLC” and “Michael J Avenatti MBR [member].”  

But Avenatti reportedly says he thinks Global Baristas has paid the outstanding taxes. Further, Avenatti claimed to Fox News that he wasn't a “member” of Global Baristas US LLC -- but rather the entity that owned it, Global Baristas LLC. 

“The federal tax lien is related to an entity that was owned by another company that I used to have an interest in,” Avenatti told Fox News Thursday. “At no point in time was I ever responsible for any taxes for Global Baristas US LLC, nor was I ever a member of that entity, nor did I own any direct interest in that entity.” 

However, a 2017 court document posted by The Seattle Times shows Avenatti acknowledging he was the "principal" of Global Baristas US LLC. 

Avenatti, though, strongly disputed the complaint itself in an email to Fox News, calling it “complete and utter nonsense” filed by an “unethical lawyer who was recently held in contempt of court." 

Nold told Fox News in an email that this is "just Avenatti being Avenatti." 

"The court ruled that I should not have given the full Avenatti deposition transcript to the news media," Nold said. "The court found nothing wrong with sending the bar complaint." 

Fox News attempted to resolve their dueling claims by contacting the State Bar -- but a spokesman said they could not comment on "confidential" filings. 

Meanwhile, another lawsuit was filed back in 2013 against Avenatti by his famous business partner, Patrick Dempsey of “Grey’s Anatomy” Dr. McDreamy fame. Dempsey's complaint against Avenatti, which was settled quickly, alleged Avenatti had not fully financed the coffee chain as agreed. 

Avenatti no longer has any interest in either Global Baristas entity.

The attorney was surely the lesser known partner in that Tully's deal.

But since then, he's rocketed to national fame with his representation of adult film star Daniels -- and is still causing controversy. 

While Cohen faces scrutiny from federal investigators and the media over his financial transactions, the disclosure of the Cohen bank records has drawn the feds' attention. The Treasury Department’s Office of the Inspector General said Wednesday that it was "inquiring" into claims that the information was "improperly disseminated." 

Inspector general counsel Rich Delmar said the agency’s investigation stemmed from its authority as the federal agency that analyzes banking records for potential illegal activity. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, financial institutions must monitor their customers’ activities and report suspicious transactions to the government. But that information is supposed to remain confidential. 

An OIG official said the inquiry was “predicated” on a New York Times story, which cited transactions first publicized by Avenatti and confirmed some of the information. 

In their own court filing, Cohen’s attorneys Stephen Ryan and Todd Harrison accused Avenatti of making false accusations, and publishing “numerous incorrect statements to the public in an apparent attempt to prejudice and discredit Mr. Cohen.”

In a letter to federal Judge Kimba Wood, who is overseeing the Cohen case, Ryan and Harrison wrote that some of the information Avenatti published did appear to come from Cohen’s actual bank records and claimed that their client “has no reason to believe that Mr. Avenatti is in lawful possession of these records.”

“[Avenatti] should be required to explain to this Court how he came to possess and release this information,” they wrote. 

Cohen's attorneys also claimed that Avenetti had incorrectly linked at least five wire transfers to their client. In two cases, they said the money was received by different Michael Cohens -- one residing in Canada and another in Israel.

When asked to respond to Cohen’s attorneys, Avenatti told Fox News that their filing was “comical and baseless.”

MICHAEL COHEN TEAM SAYS SOME OF AVENATTI'S CLAIMS ARE ABOUT OTHER MICHAEL COHENS

“We have done nothing wrong and the best thing they can point to is claiming that a mere $25,000 worth of transactions out of $3 million that we detailed is inaccurate? What a joke,” Avenatti told Fox News on Thursday. 

Cohen is under criminal investigation as part of a grand jury probe of his personal business dealings. The investigation is being led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. 

Even before his Daniels' representation, Avenatti was known as a hard-charging and effective attorney who employs "unconventional" tactics in his legal battles. In Avenatti’s early days, he worked at The Research Group, a political opposition research and media firm run by Democratic political operative Rahm Emanuel. 

The latest politico raising questions about Avenatti is Mark Penn—a former top pollster for Bill and Hillary Clinton—who said Avenatti should say where he got the banking details and who's funding him. 

“He wants to make the discussion all about where Michael Cohen, President Trump's personal attorney, got his money but, to have clean hands, Avenatti needs to come forward with exactly who is financing his operation, who his sources were for detailed banking information, and whether he really is an attorney solely representing Stormy Daniels or just using her as cover to wage a political operation,” Penn wrote in an op-ed for The Hill, further questioning “where and how” Avenatti got Cohen’s “detailed financial information—because he didn’t find it on Google.” 

"He can’t be both an attorney and then participate as an officer of the court in trafficking illegally obtained information," he wrote. 

Avenatti slammed Penn in response, calling his column "ridiculous" and saying there was "nothing wrong" in the release of Cohen's financial information. Further, he posted a statement saying the case is funded by Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) and crowdfunded donations collected online. "[N]o political party or PAC is funding this effort. No left wing conspiracy group is behind this. And no big fat cat political donors are leading the charge. Get over it," he said. 

On Tuesday, when initially asked how he obtained the documents he published, Avenatti told Fox News: “That’s my work product and will not be disclosed.”

He then asked: “Why is Michael Cohen refusing to provide the bank statements to the public if what we have asserted ... is not true?”

Fox News' Samuel Chamberlain and Kristin Brown and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday that the Department of Homeland Security will refer anyone caught entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico to the Justice Department for prosecution.

"If you cross the border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple," Sessions said. "If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child may be separated from you as required by law."

Sessions' so-called "zero tolerance policy" raises the possibility that immigration authorities could separate parents from their children whenever a family is apprehended attempting to cross the border. The Wall Street Journal, citing the Department of Health and Human Services, reported earlier Monday that 700 children had been separated from their families since October of last year.

The attorney general added that making false statements to an immigration officer, filing a fraudulent asylum claim or helping others do so would be prosecuted as felonies.

"We're here to send a message to the world that we are not going to let the country be overwhelmed," Sessions said. "People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border. We need legality and integrity in our immigration system."

Monday's announcement came about a week after hundreds of Central American migrants traveled to the San Ysidro, Calif., port of entry seeking asylum following a monthlong caravan through Mexico.

SESSIONS SENDS MORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES, PROSECUTORS TO BORDER; SAYS 'PEOPLE SHOULD WAIT THEIR TURN'

President Donald Trump described the caravan as proof that more must be done to secure the border with Mexico, including building a wall, while Sessions called it "a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system."

"I have no doubt that many of those crossing our border illegally are leaving behind difficult situations," Sessions said Monday. "But we cannot take everyone on this planet who is in a difficult situation."

Last week, Sessions announced that the Justice Department was sending 35 assistant U.S. attorneys to the southwestern border to to "prosecute illegal entries into our country," while 18 immigration judges would focus "full time" on clearing a backlog of asylum claims.

On Monday, Sessions said the Trump administration's actions were necessary because of "massive increases in illegal crossings in recent months."

"These trends are clear; these trends must end," Sessions said, adding that "11 million people are here already illegally. That's more than the population of Portugal or [the state of] Georgia."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Trump questioned why Peter Strzok was still working at the FBI Monday morning, following the resignation of his “lover” Lisa Page and former top FBI lawyer James Baker.

“Lisa Page, who may hold the record for the most Emails in the shortest period of time (to her Lover, Peter S), and attorney Baker, are out at the FBI as part of the Probers getting caught? Why is Peter S still there? What a total mess. Our Country has to get back to Business!” Trump tweeted Monday morning.

Page, who worked for a 45-day detail on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, returned to work in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in July 2017. An FBI spokesperson confirmed to Fox News that Page “resigned” Friday to “pursue other opportunities.”

Page and Strzok have come under scrutiny for their anti-Trump text messages. Strzok also worked on Mueller’s team, up until August 2017, when he was reassigned to work in the FBI’s human resources division following the revelations that the two were romantically involved and exchanged politically charged text messages.

“Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the Special Counsel’s Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation. Lisa Page completed her brief detail and had returned to the FBI weeks before our office was aware of the allegations,” Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel’s office, told Fox News in an email in December.

As of last week, sources told Fox News that Strzok was still working at the FBI in human resources. 

The latest batch of the 50,000+ text messages exchanged between Strzok-Page released to congressional committees show the two FBI officials suggesting they move their “work-related” communications to personal accounts and devices—such as “imsg,” the Apple texting app; and “gmail,” or Google Mail.

Despite requests from congressional committees, the FBI will not collect the messages on personal accounts between Strzok and Page, according to an FBI letter obtained by Fox News Friday.

An FBI official wrote in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that FBI employees are “required to adhere to recordkeeping policies in place where communications constitute records under the Federal Records Act,” and added though, that “the FBI is not otherwise obligated to collect and/or retain all communications between its employees.”

“Thus, the FBI has not requested from Ms. Page or Mr. Strzok any information from their personal email accounts, nor has the FBI conducted searches of non-FBI-issued communications devices or non-FBI email accounts associated with Mr. Strzok or Ms. Page,” the FBI acting assistant director of the FBI’s office of congressional affairs, Charles Thorley, wrote.

Grassley penned a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, in response to Thorley, urging the bureau to collect those communications to “shed more light” on the way the FBI handled certain investigations.

Also, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has investigated whether the DOJ or FBI may have deleted text messages between Strzok and Page, according to GOP sources who spoke with members of the IG’s team, but so far, has not found evidence that officials from either agency deleted those text messages. It is unclear at this point whether the office is still investigating the matter, or whether technical glitches may instead be at issue.

Also last week, Baker, a confidante of former FBI Director James Comey, also left the bureau. Baker was a top lawyer at the FBI, but was reassigned last year following a Justice Department investigation on suspicion of leaking classified information about the unverified Trump dossier. Baker was reassigned as an adviser to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Comey touted Baker’s work on Twitter.

“A great public servant retired from the FBI today. Jim Baker’s integrity and commitment to the rule of law have benefitted our country through 5 presidents, of both parties. We are fortunate he and so many others choose to devote their lives to justice,” Comey tweeted on Friday.

A key witness in the possible bank fraud case against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ wife, Jane Sanders, was questioned by FBI agents just over a week ago, Fox News has learned.

The revelation—the first such confirmed development since January—likely indicates that the federal investigation into a soured $10-million real estate deal remains open.

Jane Sanders, the former president of the now-defunct Burlington College, was at the helm when the college decided to expand and obtain a tract of land from a Roman Catholic parish. She secured a $6.7 million loan from a bank and a $3.6 million loan from the parish from which she planned to purchase the property.

She resigned in 2011 amid accusations that she inflated the amount of money donors have pledged to the school and provided incorrect information to a bank to get the loan. Multiple individuals, who were listed as college donors, have since come forward denying the commitments.

Coralee Holm, the former Burlington College dean of operations, has previously told Fox News that the probe has “no specific deadline.” FBI agents first questioned her last summer, she said.

Holm said she was visited by agents two weeks ago and answered “some clarifying questions on materials.”

The news of a recent questioning comes after reports that a federal grand jury was empaneled last year in October and heard evidence from another former official at the college.

Robin Lloyd, who served on the board at Burlington College, confirmed in January that a grand jury was looking into the possible bank fraud by Sanders. Grand juries are generally secretive and their existence is often denied to the public, but witnesses are allowed to discuss their testimonies.

“They’re trying to pull together where did the money come from to enable Burlington College to convince (People’s United Bank) and the diocese to go ahead with the deal,” Lloyd told the Burlington Free Press.

A spokesperson for the Sanders family has pushed back against the recent developments in the probe, saying they had “absolutely no reason to believe that there is a grand jury empaneled to examine” Sanders or any “aspect of Dr. Sanders’ service.” The spokesperson blamed the media for “recycling an account of a government interview of a witness from several months ago.”