Napolitano Rips ‘Massive, Stalinistic-Like Use of Force’ in Bundy Ranch Standoff

‘The government, instead of using the least force necessary ... is using the most force possible, because they want to intimidate the Bundys’

NAPOLITANO: "The simple answer for the government against Cliven Bundy is to take the judgment that a federal judge has determined the Bundys owe the government and file that judgment in the local county courthouse, and then when Mr. Bundy passes away, before the property passes to his inheritors, the government will get its judgment plus interest. Or, if Mr. Bundy before he passes away he sells the property, the government will get its judgment plus interest. Now, your question is a profound one: why won't the government do that? Why, instead of doing that have we seen this massive show of force with sharp shooters and snipers, with some guns aimed at Mr. Bundy, at his family, at innocent protesters and friends, even at the news media? Because the government instead of using the least force necessary -- which is what the rule of law is -- is using the most force possible because they want to intimidate the Bundys. I'm convinced he cannot be intimidated. They want to intimidate others and they're probably a little unsure of themselves, Sean, and so they're compensating for that lack of surety, lack of certainty with this massive Stalinistic-like use of force."
HANNITY: "200-plus armed agents, as you say, sharp shooters and snipers here. We've got dead cattle as a result of this. Dogs were used and then we have people hit with stun guns by some of the BLM officers there. I didn't want to see the officers hurt. I didn't want to see the protesters hurt and seemed all for nothing. This is not an isolated case. We did a whole series on imminent domain, some we highlighted tonight. The government is taking property from people in Colorado because they want open space. They're taking property that a World War II vet has lived in for 46 years so they can get more tax revenue for townhouses and condos. Really, is that what the law says about imminent domain? I thought it was for schools and hospitals."
NAPOLITANO: "Unfortunately the law has changed and it has changed in a totalitarian direction. Let me take you back to the framing of the Constitution. When the Constitution was written, Jefferson and Madison argued the government should not have imminent domain powers, that the only moral legitimate transfer of real estate was that which was voluntary on both sides, a willing buyer and a willing seller. When the government takes your property against your will, no matter what they pay you for it, it is not a willing seller. It's just a willing buyer, the government. And often the government gets the property at bargain basement rate."
HANNITY: "That's outrageous."
NAPOLITANO: "However, before the Kelo decision of about ten years ago, Sean, the government more or less, not exclusively, but for the most part, used property it took for roads or schools or hospitals -- Legitimate public purposes where every human being could enjoy the new purpose of the land."
HANNITY: "And they were duly compensated in those cases. They got fair market value or maybe a little above fair market value. Wasn't that the standard back then?"
NAPOLITANO: "Yes. Since --"
HANNITY: "All right, let me ask you this. Because we have the case now in Texas. We're going to get into it in the next segment as well -- Where the BLM is claiming this property on the Red River. They're going to take that acreage?"
NAPOLITANO: "The BLM made the colossal mistake of going on the wrong side of that river. You and I know Greg Abbott. Even if he were not about to become the Republican nominee for governor of Texas, and he'll make a terrific governor."
HANNITY: "I agree."
NAPOLITANO: "He's the tenacious defender of personal liberty and property rights as the sitting attorney general of Texas, you will see a vastly different reaction inTexas than you saw in Nevada. In Nevada you saw lip service from a governor who sided with Bundy. In Texas, you will see legal action and maybe even force from a state government that simply will not permit the feds to peel the private property of it's citizens."
HANNITY: "Absolutely. Texas will not give up the fight. And why would the government precipitate that if it's not their land. Last question, let me put up on the screen, Judge, if you look at the latest percentage of land that is owned by the federal government as of 2010 and the congressional research service, look at the percentage they own in Nevada. 81 percent, Utah 66, Idaho 61, Oregon 53 and right on down the list. Why does the government own all of this land anyway?"
NAPOLITANO: "Sean, I'm going to make a statement that the government will consider outrageous. But Almost everybody watching us now will understand it, and I expect you'll appreciate it. The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in whose borders it exists, period."
HANNITY: "I totally agree with you."

Video files
Full
Compact
Audio files
Full
Compact
Similar stories
Fireworks: Chris Hayes Attacks Nevada Assemblywoman over Bundy Ranch Standoff
Napolitano: Bundy Ranch Shows Obama’s ‘Culture of Intimidation’ Across America
TV Reporter Accosted at Bundy Ranch: ‘You Don’t Deserve 1st Amendment Rights’
Chris Cuomo Rips Trump: Sounds Like He’s Telling NFL Owners ‘Control Your Dog’
Alyssa Milano Says President Trump Is Using a ‘Cult Like Force’ To Communicate with the American People