I also find your comment odd, because by the end you seem to be taking it at face-value that she was spied on. Personally, I'm dubious for the reasons Thomas stated.
If somebody has a job of reporting, and they make 500 valid claims and 1 bad one, them reporting something commonplace isn't a situation where we need all the nasty character impeachment.
I get really tired of folks wanting a to start a knife fight over any little thing that might make their guy look bad. I'm not going to defend her or even try to debate what happened or didn't happen. It's a mainstream professional reporter reporting something that, while odd and perhaps PR-worhty, isn't that big of a deal. Should we start talking about all the computers, networks, and other things that are insecure? It's jsut silly. Let her make her observations, her friends pump it, and maybe she sells a few more books. Good for her. These kind of political show-and-tell books are a dime-a-dozen, and nobody will remember her book a year from now.
But this thing of attacknig the messenger in a personal way, and then driving all the conversation to either a support or defense of their character (instead of the issue at hand)? That's gone on way too long, and sadly enough they'll still be doing it ten years from now. That's my reason for posting.
Hope that helps clear it up for you.
I don't think you need to drag out Nidon. Simple fact of the matter is that anybody investigating anything truly juicy is a security threat no matter who the president is or what the scandal. No conspiracy required (sadly enough for this author) It's probaby just folks doing what we pay them to do.