For Benghazi conspiracy theorists, you know you're having a really bad day when even Bill O'Reilly throws cold water on your phony claims. And it's especially bad news for an already discredited journalist, who previously tried to hype a bogus Benghazi report and lost her job over it.

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly questioned whether the latest report from discredited investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, which baselessly suggested a Benghazi cover-up by State Department officials, actually constituted a "scandal."

On the September 16 edition of his Fox News show, host Bill O'Reilly invited Attkisson to discuss her "troubling accusations against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton" from "a disgruntled former State Department official." After Attkisson confirmed that her source had not witnessed such actions himself, O'Reilly dismissed the conspiracy explaining that "If no documents were removed, scrubbed, if they weren't taken out or destroyed, then I don't know if there is any scandal."

When BillO asked her if nothing was removed, scrubbed or taken, how could it be a scandal, Sharyl's response was, "why were they down there?"

O'Reilly: He didn't see any documents though removed himself, did he?

Attkisson: Not removed, no. He went through documents, he went through stacks of paper....

He found nothing, but he did look through stacks of paper and somebody else told him about a supposed coverup. How did she last as long as she did at CBS?

Later on, Fox News' James Rosen said that Attiksson's source had a chance to tell the same story earlier,but never did.

ROSEN: One point about this matter, Democrats on the House Oversight committee, which has previously investigated Benghazi, have noted that Mr. Maxwell was formally interviewed by that panel last year with a transcript prepared and despite many opportunities to do so, Mr. Maxwell never disclosed this shocking scene of obstruction of justice by high level state department officials that he now claims to have witnessed. That omission on his part at that time, along with other issues, will ensure that if and when Mr. Maxwell testifies before the House Benghazi committee, he will face some rough sledding in cross examination.
O'REILLY: Yeah. Why didn't you say it when you had the first opportunity? Yeah, I got it.

ROSEN: Yes now, all of this is not to say that what Mr. Maxwell claims to have witnessed never happen, just that it bears a lot of further investigation before it can be deemed credible.

I'm sure that the Heritage Foundation is quite happy with her bogus story since it did well in conservative media circles that would have given the Daily Signal plenty of traffic and as we know, clicks and page views are more important to some blogs and websites than truth and facts.