CNN Contributor Adamantly Defends Convicted Cop Killer

Marc Lamont Hill cop killer
<> on December 7, 2016 in New York City.

If you remember Marc Lamont Hill, it’s probably from when he was one of the resident liberals on Fox News a couple years ago. At times, it seemed like it was his job to get owned by conservatives because I honestly can’t think of a single time he actually won an argument. He most frequently appeared on “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Nowadays, he’s a BET News correspondent and CNN commentator. You won’t see him on Fox News anymore, but Hill still can’t hide from right-wing criticism, especially when he’s making comments as insane as what you’re about to read. On Tuesday, Hill wished a happy birthday to, of all people, convicted and escaped cop-killer Assata Shakur. He’s not even the first Leftie to do so. Maxine Waters issued a public statement defending “U.S. freedom fighter Assata Shakur” back in 1998, and a year before Hill’s post. The lunatics behind the Women’s March wished Shakur a happy birthday too.

Hill’s comment “She showed me the beauty of struggle. And she proved that ‘a wall is just a wall. and nothing more at all. It can be broken down,” is a bit ironic. Prison walls certainly were no match for Shakur, who escaped in 1979, before surfacing in Cuba in 1984. She’s been on America’s Most Wanted list ever since, and bringing her to justice is a political subject that comes up every couple of years. Most recently, President Donald Trump called on Cuba to return her to U.S. custody, but that will never happen, unfortunately.

We can add this post to a long list of crazy comments from Hill’s over the years, including by not limited to…

This unexpected bit of race-baiting:

Defending the assault of Trump supporters:

Blaming the thwarted Islamist attack on a “Draw Muhammad Contest” on the attendees:

And, on CNN, defending other cop killers:

After being blasted on social media for his post about Assata, Hill attempted to justify it, by claiming it was his critics who didn’t know the “truth” about Shakur’s case.

A bit bizarre, isn’t it? Hill is presented with the consensus on the case, which he immediately dismissed by accusing people of not doing their own research. He didn’t seem too eager to share his own research exonerating Shakur, and his case seems more to rest on the fact that there isn’t 100% certainly she’s guilty (is there ever?).

When Hill asked “Do you honestly feel informed enough on this issue to claim guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?” my immediate thought was “no – but a jury of Shakur’s peers did.”

If Shakur truly was innocent, I think we’d have expected her to behave differently over the years. Innocent people don’t tend to break out of prison, flee to a communist country for the past four decades, and then refuse most contact from the outside world. If she’s in hiding – is it really so hard for Hill to believe that it’s because she actually does have something to hide?

By Matt

Matt is the co-founder of Unbiased America and a freelance writer specializing in economics and politics. He’s been published... More about Matt

Mentioned in this article::