The latest from the New York Times on the capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala notes that at the time of attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, he told other Libyans he did it to take revenge for that anti-Islam video that sparked protests and riots across the Middle East.

What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

One of the linchpins of the confused Republican narrative on Benghazi is that the anti-Islam video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack, no how, no way, and Obama invented this story to cover up … something.

If interrogators confirm that the video played a part in motivating Khattala to order the attacks, it would factually destroy that linchpin argument.

Not that destroying linchpins has any effect in the right wing echo chamber; they’ll continue to make up conspiracy theories about Benghazi forever. It’s become a mass hallucination on the right, and they don’t want to come down.

But facts is facts. And the New York Times’ reporting on this subject has been consistent since shortly after the attack.