He's describing the newsletter (nonracist content) in 1995, but in 2001 he described the racist content. Apples and oranges.
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.
“He’s describing the newsletter (nonracist content) in 1995, but in 2001 he described the racist content. Apples and oranges.”
Oh, I see. In 1995, he read the non-racist part of the newsletter he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980s. Then, in 2001, he read the racist part of the newsletter he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980s.
Question: How did he know in 1995 which parts of the newsletter, the one he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980’s, he shouldn’t read? Were the racists parts of the newsletter, the one he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980s, somehow redacted? Or, was there some kind of content warning? You know, something like ‘Warning: this part of the newsletter, which wasn’t written by Ron Paul but you paid good money on his representation that it was, contains racist content.’.