Or then again, maybe s/he didn't: Bloomberg had it first.
Whatever those Russkie hackers were trying to do with our voting systems, they tried to do it in 39 states, Bloomberg reported last week:
RILEY AND ROBERTSON (6/13/17): Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.Bloomberg had three anonymous sources. They said the Russkies were active in 39 states, "almost twice as many states as previously reported!"
In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.
Well actually, one of Bloomberg's anonymous sources made that assertion. Bloomberg apparently built its lead around the claim by that one source.
For all we know, that statement may have been accurate. On the other hand, here's the way the Washington Post reported yesterday's hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, hard-copy headline included:
ZAPOTOSKY AND DEMIRJIAN (6/22/17): Hacking attempts on 21 states are tied to RussiaAccording to this official source, the actual number was 21 states—roughly half as many states as Bloomberg reported.
People connected to the Russian government tried to hack election-related computer systems in 21 states, a Department of Homeland Security official testified Wednesday.
Samuel Liles, the Department of Homeland Security’s acting director of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Cyber Division, said vote-tallying mechanisms were unaffected and that the hackers appeared to be scanning for vulnerabilities—which Liles likened to walking down the street and looking at homes to see who might be inside.
But hackers successfully exploited a “small number” of networks, Liles said, likening the act to making it through a home’s front door.
At this point, it doesn't matter what the number was. What matters is our ability to stave off some future Election Day disaster.
Does anyone think we'll be able to do that, given the way the culture is descending into tribal division and all-around full-blown nuttiness?
On the other hand, there could be a lesson here about reporting based on anonymous sources. Bloomberg went with what one person said.
Should Bloomberg have done that? To what extent should such reports be trusted?
Final question: Final question, while we're at it, and while we're working the numbers:
How many meetings did Sessions have? That was all entertainment, wasn't it? Entertainment and the exciting tribal chase.
(Based on an unreliable source? By the name of Comey the God?)