A New York Times editor on Monday dismissed the criticism that the newspaper’s months-long investigation into the 2012 attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was intended to clear a path for a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
“Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton. We haven’t chosen anyone,” wrote editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal.
Since the New York Times published its report on Saturday, Republicans have cast doubt on its findings and suggested the report was meant to boost a hypothetical White House bid for Clinton, who helmed the State Department at the time of the attacks.
Asked on “Fox News Sunday” whether the report was intended to exonerate Clinton, House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers (R-MI) said he thought the timing of the story was odd. Then on Monday, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) accused the newspaper of “already laying the groundwork” for Clinton although she has not announced any intention to run.
“I can also state definitively that there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing about the Benghazi investigation article until I read it in the paper on Sunday,” Rosenthal concluded.