I am not saying that if she held on to that story to sell her book that was the right thing to do. I think though she may be able to put that story in her book whereas the Times may have required more information/sources/confirmation before printing it. It may have been a thing where they did not have enough at the time to print it, it is an explosive story so would require high level sourcing and confirmation and maybe she/they did not have it at the time. Or the people they needed to go on record would not. 

I don't want to seem like I am defending her and yeah, people should understand how corrupt the guy is, but there could be reasons why it is in her book and was not in the paper and we don't really know if she held it back or the paper held it back.