Hillary Clinton’s camp denied that the former Secretary of State had prior knowledge of the New York Times‘ revisionist account of the Benghazi attacks.
Conservatives are accusing the New York Times of publishing its article denying that al-Qaida had a role in the lethal terrorist attack for “political reasons” — specifically to give a helping hand to 2016 Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.
But a spokesman for Clinton tells The Daily Caller she had no knowledge of the story until it went public over the weekend.
“To your question, we learned about the story at the same time that the rest of America did, when it posted online on Saturday afternoon,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in an email Monday evening.
Some Republicans have suggested the New York Times published the story in order to give cover to the former first lady ahead of her second attempt at the presidency.
“I don’t know why they put it out unless it was for political reasons,” Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland said Monday on Fox and Friends.
Over the weekend, the Times published an in-depth investigative piece titled, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” which Democrats have gleefully promoted.
The story contradicts what Republicans on Capitol Hill say they have learned from their investigations. The New York Times reports that al-Qaida was not involved in the 2012 attacks in Libya and the attacks were partly motivated by an anti-Islam video.
Should Clinton run for president, it is expected that she will be criticized over the attacks, which killed four Americans including Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.