Update to Lieberman Site: Statement Blames Ned Lamont

[VolcanoJen]

The "Account Suspended" graphic has now been replaced with this:

www.joe2006.com
http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/

UPDATE ON THE ATTACK ON THE LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

STATEMENT FROM SEAN SMITH: "For the past 24 hours the Friends for Joe Lieberman's website and email has been totally disrupted and disabled, we believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign has notified the US Attorney and the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and the campaign will be filing a formal complaint reflecting our concerns. The campaign has also notified the State Attorney General Dick Blumenthal for his review."

"We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy."

ON EDIT: Apparently, the Lieberman camp has just changed the website back to "Account Suspended." They were busted, as Skinner noted in this thread, as their statement proved they had access to their servers. Fortunately, Skinner made a screencap, which you can view ?click">here.

ON SECOND EDIT: The Lieberman campaign has produced an email from their provider about the (bullshit) DoS attack. You can read it here, at TPMMuckraker:

Lieberman Campaign: Pro-Lamont Hackers Crashed Site

Too bad they've already been busted... they should have never put that statement up!

[ShortnFiery]

1. Awe, defamation without proof ...

Is this measuring up to be a DLC Pity Party? :(

[VolcanoJen]

3. This is disgusting, and I'm ashamed.

I agree with others who smell Rove all over this one.

When Joementum collides with Reality when the votes are counted, will they blame the website crash? Will they say that's why they lost?

[Cha]

9. They sure as Hell will! This is a

co-ordinated pre-emptive strike. I hope Dems get to the bottom of this like they did the New Hampshire Phone Jamming Crimes.

[David Dunham]

32. Technicians have confirmed hacking occurred. Ned's busted.

[VolcanoJen]

33. So, Ned Lamont's people posted the statement blaming themselves?

Wow, that makes sense. :eyes:

[Beetwasher]

39. You're Full Of Shit

Even IF it WAS hacked (and it's only Lieberman's people saying so) there's nothing "busting" Ned.

Your lame attempts at propoganda are pathetic.

You post in every thread the same crap EXCEPT Skinners that shows why the whole claim is BULLSHIT. Why is that? :eyes:

[myrna minx]

43. You are so incredibly transparent. n/t

[Caution]

51. That hacking may or may not have occurred certainly doesn't

prove that Lamont had anything to do with it. given that Lamont has been beating Joe's ass into the ground in the polls, I think pulling an illegal stunt that might actually affect a grand total of 10 voters and would have a much greater potential of blowing up in his face instead, I think it pretty unlikely that Lamont was in any way involved. Only Lieberman's campaign has shown itself to be really stupid to this point.

[janx]

6. It certainly sounds that way.

Such a gross assumption to make...

[applegrove]

2. Isn't there a record of Rove doing this sort of thing? I think Rove's

picture should be in the OP.

He does this shit. Makes the opposition look nasty on election day.

Why would anyone working for Lamont do such a thing? Doesn't make any sense.

[Kingshakabobo]

14. Yes. He bugged his own office. nt

[tridim]

4. Gee, I wonder if they can provide a shred of proof?

Or is this just a holy Joe "faith based" accusation?

[jaxx]

28. They don't need proof........just plant the seed and the radical

right wing makes it gospel. It's the republican way.

:banghead:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. The account is suspended

As in you don't pay your bill and they suspend your account.

I guess you wouldn't pay your bill if you expected to lose though.

[ronnykmarshall]

7. What an asshole.

He better have proof to back this up. If not, Lamont should sue the fuck out of him.

[Caution]

8. Well your title is a bit misleading

Lieberman isn't blaming Lamont directly, he is asking that Lamont denounce the tactic. I agree with Lieberman on this one. If this is in fact some kind of attack, which his hosting provider indicates it is, it should be strongly discouraged.

[VolcanoJen]

13. They're parsing their words. You know what they intend.

They're using legalese, asking Lamont to "denounce" this kind of behavior. Read between the lines.

It's really quite obvious what the Lieberman campaign is intimating. The Lieberman camp has publicly asked Ned Lamont to "call off your cyber allies." Just reported on CNN.

Edit: In fact, the statement reads, "We believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents." Who, besides Ned Lamont, is, today, a political opponent of Joe Lieberman?

[Caution]

38. I am a political opponent.

Words matter. Heck words are 90% of what politics is all about.

[Kingshakabobo]

16. The campaign manager told Tweety they want the Lamont campaign.....

.....to "call off the dogs."

[Caution]

40. This is still different.

If it is a hack attack, it is certainly coming from a Lamont supporter, either directed or misguided (well, misguided either way). Lamont should come right out and say "if anyone thinks this is helping my campaign, they are incorrect and I ask them to stop disrupting Mr. Lieberman's campaign."

Take the high road and all it then becomes is more bad publicity for Joementum.

[VolcanoJen]

44. Think this through a little bit longer, though.

If the site was indeed hacked, why would Lamont supporters pretending to be Sean Smith post a statement on the site blaming themselves?

And if in fact Sean Smith posted that statement, then, as Skinner alleges, it shows the Lieberman camp has access to their servers, after all.

I disagree with your premise that the "attack" is "certainly" coming from a Lamont supporter.

[Caution]

48. I said "if it is an attack" firstly

and secondly, Lieberman may have had access to their servers, that doesnt mean that they can put up a full site as Skinner well knows. A DOS attack floods servers with massive amounts of traffic. A simple textual statement can occasionally get around such an attack. Additionally, if Lieberman's website were running under ASP, or using ODBC for database driven content, and if the site were not well protected by the provider, the hack may have been able to delete some of that content, making it feasible to only post a short notice until such time as they are able to get backups in place.

Usually, the simplest explanation is the correct one. After all of the incredible stupidity that Lieberman's campaign has shown throughout are you serious going to suggest to me that all of a sudden they have pulled off some kind of double secret probation type scam by hacking their own site so they could then blame Lamont?

I think it much more likely that they either didn't pay their bill (which does NOT appear to be the case now that they have shown notice from the provider to the effect that they were up to date with payments) or that some idiot thought that taking Lieberman's website down on the day of the election would somehow benefit Lamont.

[VolcanoJen]

49. Do you think the webmaster removed the statement?

Do you think the statement itself was a hack? Do you think the webmaster could post again but, for some reason, is choosing not to?

[Caution]

50. I'm not going to bother speculating.

But all indications point to one of two things. Failure to pay, or an outside attack. Attributing super stealthy spy thinking powers to the Lieberman campaign just doesn't quite fit the profile at this point (take a quick look at some of Lieberman's campaign ads if you want evidence of their overall stupidity).

The bill payment thing looks to be incorrect as well due to the fact that Lieberman has shown a notice indicating that payment isnt the issue. This would be pretty stupid to fake, since a simple phone call or interview with the provider would show the truth of that one.

[Blue Diadem]

19. According to MSNBC, he is blaming Lamont

They just read a statement that includes the portion from the op's post but also includes much more. It says Lamont needs to call off his cyber friends. There are numerous claims included. I'm going to check out the MSNBC site now to see if they have it up yet.

[Caution]

41. If they are blaming Lamont directly I hope Lamont sues the pants off them

n/t

[Iniquitous Bunny]

10. I just posted this on the other thread.

My view is that it's not only a dirty trick, it's libel.

[janx]

11. To make matters worse, there's a comma splice between the

first two sentences... ;-)

[Norquist Nemesis]

12. CNN reporting it now

Reading the statment from the site on the air.

[janx]

15. Wow. The Lieberman campaign sure has some fast and

direct access to the media, eh?

[VolcanoJen]

17. Impressive, isn't it? And they treated it as Breaking News.

We should have seen this coming. Lieberman is using All The King's Horses, and All The King's Men.

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. Strange how it's been hacked, but they're reading a page from it!

Now, how in the Hell would a hacked site be accessible to have a page that states it's been hacked and they're filing charges? hmmmmmmmmmmm.....

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. Connections!

His are as good as any Republican!

[VolcanoJen]

18. Lieberman Camp on CNN: "Call off your cyber allies."

That is the comment directed toward Ned Lamont from the Lieberman camp, as read on CNN moments ago.

[Norquist Nemesis]

25. It doesn't make sense

Why would the leader in the race hack the loser's site? :shrug:

[VolcanoJen]

29. It especially doesn't make sense, considering they have access to the site

They're sooooo busted. Should've never posted that statement. :-)

[VolcanoJen]

20. IMPORTANT: Read Skinner's response!!

Why the Lieberman website story is bullshit

As Skinner says, the new, updated "statement" proves the Lieberman camp has access to their servers. Brilliant!!

[devilgrrl]

21. Who wants to place bets that Lieberman's people did the hacking?

What a bunch of bullshit.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. Or his good buddies in DC! n/t

[lolly]

27. I'll go ahead and bet the farm on that.

What's more, it shouldn't be hard to prove. Everything done on a computer, especially something this massive, is traceable. Hope somebody is working on it right now.

Or maybe even just threatening too. Lieberman and his staff seem so dense about these internet thingies, he may have no idea how easy it's going to be to bust him.

[tridim]

36. I already put down a million bucks on another thread

It wasn't hacked either, they just deleted the site and put up a "You've been hacked" index page.

[dogday]

23. This is such a freaking low blow

Just how evil does one have to be to cook up these schemes??? And anyone who participates in them like Lieberman is doing, is surely a person I would not want in office....

[VolcanoJen]

30. CNN is updating story now

The Lamont camp says, of course, they have nothing to do with this and in fact they are no certain there has been an attack.

CNN remains clueless about Skinner's point...

[Norquist Nemesis]

31. LOL! They show DailyKos non-payment note

Joe's now saying it is "disenfranchising voters". :wtf: I didn't realize one could vote through a candidate's website!

[VolcanoJen]

34. Can someone send them a tip with Skinner's screencap?

Apparently, CNN remains unaware that at one point today, the "statement" was posted on the Lieberman site, and then taken down quickly.

[Norquist Nemesis]

35. Except they read the statement and said it was from the site

They just haven't connected the dots, so to speak.

[mcscajun]

42. Absolutely! Before I go to the polls for ANY election, I visit the

candidate's website, and if I don't find their page, I change my mind and my vote. Hell, they must not be running anymore, right? Otherwise, their webpage would still be up and running. :sarcasm:

If I find that Vote Online thingy, I stay home. :spray:

What a bunch of bastards are in the Lieberman camp.

[mcscajun]

37. Along with all the other crap that is in this BS charge...

"...attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process..."

:wtf:

I'd love to know HOW a missing website suppresses voter participation, and last I looked, we didn't have Internet voting, so there's certainly nothing going on that "undermines the voting process."

I believe they took a page from the Rove playbook to get the Corporate Media screaming out this bogus charge, which WILL suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process.

Pot, meet kettle.

What a bunch of bastards.

[Philosoraptor]

45. I see wiggle room in the statement.

they call on lamont to denounce dirty tricks and call for whoever did it to cool it, but it does NOT accuse him directly by name

[Norquist Nemesis]

47. And Lamont did that

Now watch Rove-trained dirty-tricksters from Lieberman camp say, "See? It just PROVES they did it! Why else would they say that!?!"

[louis-t]

46. His "political opponents" should be Repugs.

I know, I know, it's a primary, just ranting.