Bill O'Reilly hasn't tried to defend Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who refuses to pay federal fines, like Sean Hannity, who appears to be trying to instigate -- but he does try to lend a sympathetic ear to his problems. Tuesday night, Bill had on his two favorite legal eagles Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, to suss out the situation and both supported the federal government's positions over the anti-government fanatics and militiamen. They agreed that Cliven Bundy has no legal or constitutional legs to stand on, and he must pay.
Lis Wiehl: ...they let the cattle go, gave them back to him, but he's still on the hook the government says and I believe they are right about this, the government's right about this, for one million dollars in late fees and taxes
Lis Wiehl: Grazing fees
O'Reilly: You can use the federal land if you pay for it
Lis Wiehl: You have to pay a fee, right, right.
O"Reilly: Supporters of Bundy say the federal government is violating the constitution, we hear that all the time. Do they have a strong argument?
Guilfoyle: Their assertion is that it isn't federal land that it actually belongs to the respective states of Nevada and the border there between Utah and Arizona, he said listen, we've been grazing on this land for years and years, "My ancestors preceding me." However, the important point is it's in the constitution even in the state of Nevada that this land belongs to the federal government so they have a very strong stand.
Lis Wiehl: That land was ceded from the state to the federal government before Bundy even had this ranch and he's had this ranch from....
O"Reilly: In Nevada there's a lot of federal land---and in other states there's federal land as well.
Lis Wiehl: Even the governor says you know they're probably right, meaning the federal government. Bundy doesn't have a constitutional issue.
O'Reilly: Just on the law.
Lis Wiehl: On the law, he loses.↓ Story continues below ↓
O"Reilly: Bundy has lost since 1996... Repeatedly..two court decisions
O"Reilly: And he's not likely to get any of this overturned.
Guilfoyle: And they seized the cattle based on a federal order, however you can be sympathetic because his family has used this, but he has to pay up so I think they should settle it..
O"Reilly: I don't think.. he's not going to pay a dime.
Wiehl: Then he's not going to be able to put those cattle back on this land and think about the other ranchers. Is this fair to them because they're paying these taxes? There's fee grazing taxes.
O"Reilly: The one point he does have, he's probably right, his ancestors were doing this...
Guilfoyle: So he's making sort of a sort of adverse possession saying he's been ...kind of squatting
Wiehl: But that ends in 1993 and 1998 when the decision came down and then in 2012 when another court decision, so there's been plenty notice here.
On the law, he loses.