[wideawake]

Bad analysis.

The agreed upon facts:

(1) There were newsletters published under Ron Paul's name prior to 1996.

(2) In 1996 Paul acknowledged authorship.

(3) Since 2001 Paul has denied authorship.

This means that Paul was either lying in 1996 or he has been lying since 2001.

It would only be fallacious to pose this question if it were not yet established that the newsletter ever existed, and my question were then being asked on the false presumption that the newsletter existed.

However, its existence has been established and is acknowledged by both Paul and by his critics.

[mnehring]

One item that is also overlooked is that regarding the Texas Monthly article and the first denial earlier this week was they were referring to just a couple of years of articles in the early 90s. Later Monday or Tuesday evening, after the campaign issued the denial, The National Review released scanned copies of all the newsletters they used and they ranged from 1978 until 1992- far more than the blanket denials issues.

[truthfreedom]

Your (2) is wrong.

Put more accurately,
it could be said that In 1996 Paul acknowledged publishership.

The Grahams do not write every article in the Washington Post. There’s a difference between Publisher and Author.

You might be able to make a valid argument “Paul hires racists” based on the available information. But you will find it difficult to make the argument “Paul is a racist” based on the available information.