Everyone is writing me about the latest Sunny Hostin episode, and frankly, I don’t understand it at all so far. “The View” co-host, who is arguably the most annoying Dunning-Kruger sufferer on that joke of an ABC “news” program, was in a discussion about Lindsay Clancy’s insanity defense and Clancy’s lawyer’s attack on the holdout juror. Hostin, a lawyer who constantly reveals that she is a dim bulb with a law license, claimed that she was the lone holdout juror in the 1991 trial of the notorious Daniel Rakowitz,, known as the “Butcher of Tompkins Square Park.” Asserting that she was the sole juror who felt he was not guilty by reason of insanity, Hostin claimed she eventually convinced the jurors to vote her way. Rakowitz apparently killed his girl friend in an argument by accident, and subsequently ate some of her to conceal the evidence. Good plan!
“That’s how much I believe in the insanity defense,” Hostin said. noting that he fed her body parts to the “unhoused.” I admit to being biased against anyone so reflexively woke that they immediately adopt the latest politically correct lingo, especially one as stupid as “unhoused.” The New York jury, which was sequestered, became so angry with Hostin’s stubbornness, she claimed, that one of them threw a chair at her. ” One-by-one, I picked them off and said, ‘What about this? What about that?'” Hostin recalled. The jury eventually found Rakowitz not criminally responsible by reason of insanity.
The argument that Rakowitz was insane isn’t exactly a tough one to make: he cut up the body of a woman he had lived with, boiled her remains and made her into a soup, then chowed down on some of it and handed it out to homeless people. Yeah, he was as sane as the day is long…
Yet for once Hostin had the right analysis of something: she told the View Crew that the defense lawyer’s attacks on the lone juror in the Clancy case undermines the jury system. Correct! See, a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then.
The crazy part is this: several social media users tracked down a contemporary Daily News article that says that Asunción “Sunny” Cummings Hostin was upset with the holdout juror, who was a man, saying she believed the cannibal defendant was aware of his actions and that the Not Guilty verdict wasn’t justified. So she wasn’t the hold-out juror? She made up the tale she told The View?
So she co-opted a classic movie theme in an act of narcissistic self aggrandizement and thought no one would notice that her pants are on fire? Wow
If that day is the winter solstice. In Utqiagvik.
“If that day is the winter solstice. In Utqiagvik.”
Heh!
PWS
This must be terrible women from the University of Notre Dame week. Mrs. Jones and now Mrs. Hostin. Yuck. How’s that DEI student body thing workin’ out there, Fathers of the Holy Cross?
Gotta love the expression on defense counsel’s face in the photo above. He’s got to be thinking a la Hyman Roth, “This is the life I’ve chosen.”
A good excuse for…um…misremembering…is blaming PTSD…like, you know, from landing under SNIPER FIRE
PWS
Correct. It’s a tactic of the Left to reframe personal anecdotes to fit a desired narrative.
Michelle Obama can make a trip to Target about helping people or about racism as needed.
LBJ milked that ubiquitous Silver Star for all it was worth while making people think he was a war hero. It must have sucked a part of MacArthur’s soul to give one of those to a congressman who went on a bombing mission that turned back due to mechanical failure after the flight he missed because he was in the bathroom got shot down.
Mr. Hostin hadn’t transitioned yet…?
Excuse me good sir, but I think your bias is blinding your analysis again.
Sonny Hostin was the “unemployed man”.
See? Now it makes perfect sense.
The poster child for ‘Main Character Syndrome’ goes to…
So what happened to the Manson look alike and the Dahmer wanta be?
“I admit to being biased against anyone so reflexively woke that they immediately adopt the latest politically correct lingo, especially one as stupid as “unhoused.” A house is not necessarily a home until one makes its so.
We should challenge the use of the word unhoused. The use suggests non-ownership rights of shelter whereas the term “homeless” implies the idea that one has lost a claim or never had a claim of ownership rights to some shelter property.
The left likes to introduce new language that over time blur the lines of understanding. When someone uses that term simply ask them to house them in their home. the difference in terms will become quickly apparent the supposed “unhoused” do not even have squatters rights to another’s residence which is their home simply by moving in after the owners have left for work.