FBI: Lieberman Campaign Responsible for Website Crash

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
Tags: Joe Lieberman (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If you missed the story back in 2006 about Joe Lieberman campaign's allegation that the Ned Lamont campaign hacked his website the day before the CT primary, Crooks and Liars has a good rundown from the day the Lamont Campaign was cleared following an investigation by the state attorney general's office and the U.S. Attorney's office.

Today the Stamford Advocate releases an e-mail it obtained via a FOIA request showing the FBI's conclusion that Lieberman's campaign was responsible for the crash.

The FBI office in New Haven found no evidence supporting the Lieberman campaign's allegations that supporters of primary challenger Ned Lamont of Greenwich were to blame for the Web site crash.

Lieberman, who was fighting for his political life against the anti-Iraq war candidate Lamont, implied that joe2006.com was hacked by Lamont supporters.

[More...]

"The server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured. There was no evidence of (an) attack," according to the e-mail. A program that could have detected a legitimate attack was improperly configured, the e-mail states. "New Haven will be administratively closing this investigation," it concluded.

Lieberman quickly blamed Lamont for the attack:

Visitors who tried to access Lieberman's site at the time received a message calling on Lamont to "make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately."

"Our Web site consultant assured us in the strongest terms possible that we had been attacked," former Lieberman campaign spokesman Dan Gerstein said in December 2006.

In the end,

According to the FBI memo, the site crashed because Lieberman officials continually exceeded a configured limit of 100 e-mails per hour the night before the primary.

< An "Ode" To . . .Tweety? | Obama's Day With His Wealthier Supporters, Changes Tune on Public Financing >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

FBI: Lieberman Campaign Responsible for Website Crash | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Markos called it correctly the day it happened (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by digdugboy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:09:58 PM EST

Lieberman's 12 million dollar campaign was paying 15 a month for web hosting, with a 10 GB limit. The entire webhost was down at the time. It shouldn't have required a DoJ investigation to confirm it.

And that sure ain't the only crash... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST

...this nutcase is responsible for. With his Iraq wet dream, the economy is well into oncoming traffic as we speak, and he's one of the lead drivers. No no, I'm sure he's not a hypocrite at least, I'm certain he's contacted all his relatives of military age and begged them to join this righteous and incomparable necessary fight against pure evil. Aren't his kids there? Nephews? Neices? Isn't there a Lieberman BRIGADE, I swear I heard about it.

Barney Fife with a tank division.

Lamont should sue him for libel (none / 0) (#1)
by lilybart on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:01:36 PM EST

for insinuating that Lamont shut it down.

Because a lawsuit may be the only way to punish this a##hole.

Is it possible that (none / 0) (#2)
by litigatormom on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM EST

Liebertoad 2006 was getting that much traffic?

: There's no way to tell (none / 0) (#7)
by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:43:13 PM EST

Who was visitting the site.

Thanks, Connecticut Republicans (none / 0) (#4)
by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST

for saddling us with this idiot for six more years.

: Let's not forget the Connecticut Independents (none / 0) (#12)
by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:46:39 PM EST

Great graphic! (none / 0) (#5)
by Jgarza on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:26:45 PM EST

this is priceless... (none / 0) (#8)
by workingclass artist on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:02:15 PM EST

Lieberman THE PHIL GRAM of Ct.

i apologize in advance! (none / 0) (#9)
by cpinva on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:44:01 PM EST

"The server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured.

this is really the perfect analogy for sen. lieberman himself.

But Obama supported Lieberman over Lamont! Doesnt (none / 0) (#10)
by Jammer on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:46:13 PM EST

that make him OK now?

My personal belief is that Obama is not (none / 0) (#13)
by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:47:51 PM EST

against or for anything it all depends where he is and with whom.

Slush Fund (none / 0) (#14)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:50:05 AM EST

They are all too busy at the FEC, and of late too few, to bother responding to this complaint:

As you might recall, the Lamont campaign filed an FEC complaint, coincidentally just two days before the whole server crash case was closed in October 2006, noting that Joe Lieberman had a campaign finance entry for "petty cash" expenditures that were way beyond the legal limits: $387,000 of "petty cash."
The $387,561.00 involved here is a sum of supposed petty cash expenditures unprecedented in any race in our state's history.

emptywheel