Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Monday, August 28, 2006


What Happened to the "Hack" Investigation?

It was three weeks ago tomorrow that then-Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith accused Ned Lamont supporters - and the campaign itself - of "attacking" their website and "disenfranchising" their primary day voters.

MATTHEWS: Sean, what do you believe the Lamont people did to you to disrupt your campaign today?

SMITH: Well, somebody has embarked on a coordinated attack on our website and our email system. They are denying voters in Connecticut a chance to communicate with our campaign and denying us a chance to communicate with voters of Connecticut. This is going to have a suppressive impact on voter turnout and the Lamont campaign, and Ned Lamont specifically, should categorically denounce these kind of dirty tricks and he should order his supporters - or whoever is behind this - to cease and desist immediately.

MATTHEWS: Technically, how do you know your system was hacked into?

SMITH: We know that it has been under a barrage of hits over the last 24 hours. They've put up this message on the website that says, we have, somehow, not paid our bills. They've denied any and all ability for us to communicate internally and to the public.

MATTHEWS: But can you say, categorically, that this was sabotage? Categorically?

SMITH: We can say that we've paid all of our bills and there is no internal glitches in our campaign. And, look, this is what we talked about earlier...

MATTHEWS: No, really, this is the point of this: Do you believe that this was an offensive action by your opponents? Can you say that, categorically, you are the victim of sabotage?

SMITH: We can say that... I don't know if it was our opponent's campaign but the supporters of our opponent and the people who have been attacking Joe Lieberman for two years on the internet are the type of... [call interrupted]

MATTHEWS: Ok, Sean, let me ask you again. You have a system that's shut down. You say that someone has put up on the website that you haven't paid your bills yet and you're saying it was sabotage by some supporter of your opponent, Ned Lamont. Is that correct?

SMITH: We've asked law enforcement to get to the bottom of this... We don't know whose behind it but we know that our opponent could get our in front of the voters of Connecticut right now and ask whoever it is, whether it's his supporters or not, to denounce this kind of politics and to cease and desist and let every voter in Connecticut have the right vote.

Those were very serious charges that have since been completely disproven. Three weeks later, Joe2006.com remains pretty much dormant.

Does the Lieberman campaign stand by the charges they made on August 8th?

And how is that investigation coming along?
This has to be be brought up in a way that shows that Joe does go negative.
Framed in a way that if you accuse your opponent of dirty tricks, you want the proof. And keep insisting on the proof until Lieberman admits he lied about Lamont's complicity in his site going down. This goes to the current credibility of what comes out of Lieberman's mouth.

Does Lieberman, just like Bush, go around blaming everone but himself when things don't go right?
I want to know what the FBI investigation consists of, and what is taking so long for an announced result from the FBI and the Attorney General asked to investigate. Or did I miss something?

I would not want to think that it's a pretext for an opportunity for court-approved electronic fishing expedition on "internet types".
Post a Comment

<< Home