Skip to main content

Hine vs Blumenthal

Blumenthal

Following the publication of Richard Hine’s letter on this blog, three media stories emerged: one on George Gombossy’s blog; another brief mention by Kevin Rennie on his blog, and a story written by Brian Lockhart of the Hearst newspaper chain. The Journal Inquirer also reported the story.

In his letter, Hine recalled a moment, more than twenty years ago, when Attorney General Richard Blumenthal did him an extraordinary kindness. Hine was leaving for service in the Marines. There was at the time a possibility that Hine might be called to service in the Persian Gulf; his marriage was breaking up; and his daughter, the “apple of his eye” was terribly frightened at the prospect.

Blumenthal offered his private phone number to his daughter if ever she had gotten desperate or afraid. According to Hine’s letter, the offer was never taken up by his daughter, but it did put Hine under the obligation of friendship. At the same time, commiserating with Hine, Blumenthal told the departing Marine, according to the Hine letter, that he had been an enlisted Marine in Vietnam:

“Alison never called Dick. His act of kindness and compassion to my daughter and me I will never forget, and I am deeply indebted to him for life. We then talked about my possibly going to Iraq if the war went poorly. We then discussed the separation from family and employment, and we agreed I would be with my fellow Marines and friends. He then said, you’re a Major, and so it will be a little different for you than it was for me as an enlisted Marine in Vietnam. I was appalled and shocked, because I knew he had not been to Vietnam, yet just a moment before he had helped to console my daughter in an unsolicited act of kindness.”

Lockhart interviewed Hine;

“I wanted to make sure Blumenthal didn’t during his talk with Hine launch into some made-up recollection of the heat of battle, losing comrades, the bugs, the jungle, whatever.

“He said ‘you’ll have it easier. You’re a major, unlike when I was an enlisted man serving in Vietnam as a marine’, Hine told me. ‘He didn’t expound on that, no … What is in that letter is a direct quote. I remember that day as clear as can be. He didn’t expand on it and I had to get going.’

“But Hine also insisted: ‘He didn’t misspeak. He didn’t misstate. He lied to me, flat out.’”

Lockhart also drew out a response from the Blumenthal team:

“The Blumenthal campaign sent me the following response to Hine’s letter:


“’Dick has been asked and has answered questions about his military service thoroughly and extensively. Now his focus is to move on to the real problems and issues that concern the people of Connecticut. Dick recalls seeking to help and support Mr. Hine but that is his only memory of a conversation that occurred many, many years ago.’”


Blumenthal’s carefully modulated response is: I don’t recall, not the ringing denial that would put the charge made by Hine to bed. Blumenthal did recall “seeking to support Mr. Hine.”

A few remarks are in order.

There are only two possibilities: Hine made up his story; the story is true.

If Hine did make up the story, the attorney general should perhaps tease his memory a bit: He recalls his own kindness at the time well enough. In the absence of a timely claim by Blumenthal that Hine is spinning a fantasy, there is no need to question the veracity of Hine’s statement, which is not to say that Hine’s veracity will not be challenged by others.

On my own blog, one disinterested commentator finds it interesting that Hines has succumbed to what he calls “Chris Shays Syndrome.”

Shays, now retired from the U.S. Congress, has said he recalled Blumenthal misstating his service record and even felt tempted to warn Blumenthal, with whom he was friendly, of the peril of misstating his military record. Considering Blumenthal’s record thus far – a claim that he “misspoke” in the face of several instances in which, according to an unimpeachable media record, he falsely said that the served in Vietnam – why should any disinterested observer believe Blumenthal rather than Shays?

Hine’s recollection is precise and engraved on his memory. One is not likely to forget such assertion as were made by Blumenthal to Hine – under such circumstances as Hine has detailed in his letter. It’s a little like forgetting which roof you fell off of after you had taken a trip to the hospital. In times of emotional crisis such as that described by Hine in his letter, the “detail” of a false claim of service in Vietnam, following an offer of extraordinary compassion, would be impressed deeply in Hine’s cranial tissue.

Hine clearly felt himself under an obligation, because of a kindness Blumenthal had done at a time of emotional stress – Does this ring a bell? – and withheld his charge for many years, according to his own letter. But when the story broke, and Mr. Blumenthal persisted in his denials … well, there are tolerance limits for some Marines.

In any case, Hine’s claim is there and he will have to defend himself against a clear and unambiguous charge made by Mr. Blumenthal that he is lying – if that ever happens. My own impression is that the assault on Hine, when it comes, will be asymmetrical. Hine works for Blumenthal, and his whistleblowing might not be appreciated in certain quarters.

I interviewed Hine on the morning of June 7, before Mr. Gombossy's blog appeared. The claims Hine made in his letter seemed plausible to me, which is why it was printed on this blog. I knew Hine about a dozen years ago. Our paths had not crossed again until I received his letter the day before our interview. My latest impression of him is that he was the same honest, forthright and courageous Marine I knew a dozen years ago. He was not wearing a tin foiled hat at our most recent meeting. He showed great courage in coming forward.


Comments

Fuzzy Dunlop said…
Don,
Just out of curiosity, how does your impression of Hine match up with the profile that Ted Mann of The Day did regarding his disciplinary problems?

http://www.theday.com/article/20100610/NWS12/306109385/1044, match up with your personal impression of him.

I'm more convinced than ever that something deeper is going on here that you're not aware of. I also think there's a reason other news outlets didn't publish the letter.
Fuzzy Dunlop said…
Don,
Just out of curiosity, how does your impression of Hine match up with the profile that Ted Mann of The Day did regarding his disciplinary problems?

http://www.theday.com/article/20100610/NWS12/306109385/1044, match up with your personal impression of him.

I'm more convinced than ever that something deeper is going on here that you're not aware of. I also think there's a reason other news outlets didn't publish the letter.
Don Pesci said…
The problem here is that everyone is dealing with impressions. There are no doors to hearts of darkness. I’m inclined to believe Hine because his narrative seems plausible. Blumenthal’s narrative – that he misspoke – is little more than a dodge. He did not misspeak. He lied, pure and simple. It was always within his power to defuse this situation. He did not do that. He has not done it. We’ll see what happens. I do know that Mann was calling a number on a phone that was not operative. I know that Blumenthal has over the years stroked and petted the media that is now purring for him. Hine has no one. I haven’t talked to him, but for one conversation, in 12 years. My sense is he is an honorable man.
Don Pesci said…
I do find it mildly amusing that some in the media now want to kill the messenger and Blumenthal has a whistleblower problem. It’s a twist in the daily fabric of our lives that Aristophanes might appreciate.
Don Pesci said…
I do find it mildly amusing that some in the media now want to kill the messenger and Blumenthal has a whistleblower problem. It’s a twist in the daily fabric of our lives that Aristophanes might appreciate.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p