I think the key is that he is acknowledging that in 1995 he's quite familiar with the newsletters that are published under his name, and their contents. To me it makes it difficult to believe that he then was blissfully unaware of what was written in them for years; that nobody spoke with him about a shift in focus of the newsletters; that it's a coincidence that when questioned about the contents, he was able to back up certain statements without having any knowledge of them.
So, was Ron Paul a naïve, absentee overseer of his newsletter, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf for years, while profiting mightily and only pretending to do business in the marketplace of ideas? Or was Ron Paul a man who was willing to put his name to anything as long as it brought in money and support - without regard to the ideas attributed to him?
Because he appears to know what was going on in 1995.
I agree. Let’s say for the moment he did not write what was written in the newsletters. Being his name was on it I bet he received copies and was on the mailing list. Surely I bet someone on the mailing list objected and let it be known.
After all this was written in 1995+ and not 1935. If there were no objections then that shows what kind of an organization Paul was running. So for Paul to claim innocence and not knowing what was going on is to far of a stretch for me.