Did Clinton tell story after campaign learned it was false?

Perhaps the biggest open question at this point is whether Clinton continued telling the story after her campaign learned it wasn't true. It seems likely that she did based on the following timeline:

• Clinton told the story Friday night during a speech on Grand Forks, ND. The speech began at 9:45PM Eastern time. (It was 8:45PM local.)
• According to Google News, by midnight that same night, the New York Times had published its story.

Unless the NYT waited to contact the Clinton campaign until 9:45PM Friday night, Clinton told the story after her campaign had been told -- and accepted -- that the story was false.

Since the article was published at midnight, If the NYT did wait until 9:45PM to contact Clinton, it would have had to have done so in the next two hours and fifteen minutes. Given the late hour and the narrowness of that window, that seems to be a very unlikely scenario.

Therefore, in all likelihood, the Clinton campaign was aware the story was false as Clinton continued to tell it.

If that is proven true, then the question becomes: why did Clinton continue to tell the tale? Were people afraid to tell her? Were lines of communication bad? Did they think nobody would notice?

It's doesn't just go to credibility -- it also goes to judgment.