Who has to prove what in the Ron Paul scandal? Actually the burden of proof rests in different places at different times.  

If ten days ago someone said that Ron Paul was a bigot the burden of proof clearly rests with them. They have to offer evidence for this assertion. 

But when The New Republic published their article on Paul’s odious newsletters they also printed pdf versions of the actual newsletters. The content of those newsletters demonstrated rather convincingly that Mr. Paul regularly published a newsletter with bigoted statements all printed under Mr. Paul’s rather prominent name. 

With such stark evidence on the table Mr. Paul had to respond and repudiate that evidence. He could do this by claiming that the newsletters were forgeries. He didn’t. He didn’t dispute them at all. 

He did call them “old” news. Well, some were and some weren’t. In the past Mr. Paul was faced with some comments from one of his newsletters. So having that come up was old news. But the rest were newly added to the pile and were not previously known of during prior discussions of Mr. Paul’s bigotry. It is actually false to call this “old” news that has been answered before when in fact the bulk of the evidence has been put on the table for the first time. 

The problem is that Mr. Paul has shifted his explanation. When an election opponent raised the issue of Paul’s newsletter in 1996 the answer given by Paul was rather clear. At that time Paul said he had written the statements but that they were taken out of context. He was asked about his unkind statements about Barbara Jordan and said he was merely expressing “his clear philosophical differences”. In none of the news articles regarding the Ron Paul Newsletter that was under discussion in the past did the Congressman deny writing his own publication. He merely claimed he was taken out of context. 

By 2001 Mr. Paul’s story on the newsletter changed. He no longer admitted authoring the publication and countercharging that his critics were misinterpreting him. Now he claimed  that he was never the author. And what about Barbara Jordan? Previously Paul admitted writing the comment but claimed it only showed his differences with her. But by 2001 he was saying “I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” 

In other words by 2001 Ron Paul was saying that his previous statements about the newsletter were false. He basically claimed that he lied before. 

The original theory was that Ron Paul was a bigot. Newsletters indicating that were introduced as evidence. The burden of proof for that original claim was meet. Paul then offered a counter-theory. He argued that the newsletter was written by someone else. Who? He won’t say. 

But when Paul introduced a counter-theory the burden of proof shifted onto his shoulders. Since he previously did not deny authorship of the newsletters but does no now what evidence can give us to support his claim that someone else wrote it. He has offered precious little. The most he said was that it doesn’t sound like him. In essence he offers no proof to back up his counterclaim. 

As the story sits at the moment Paul admits he published the newsletter. He admits the comments are genuine and doesn’t assert they were faked. He no longer claims they were taken out of context merely that he didn’t write them. The newsletter had Paul’s name in big letters on the front page. Subscriptions to it were taken by his staff. It was printed by his campaign manager and it was edited by former aide and close friend Lew Rockwell. What  you have then is basically an admission that he published a bigoted newsletter for several years out of his own office. He put his own name on it but wants to say someone else wrote it.

Of course if they ghost wrote if for Paul then Paul is still responsible. And as the publisher he is still responsible. He was the one who put out the newsletter. At best if he proves someone else wrote it he will have only shown that he paid someone else to write bigoted articles in his name -- hardly an improvement.  But he’s not even attempting to prove that.

He’s refused to name the author. In addition he claims he can’t remember who it is. So why did he allow this to happen. He says it happened during a transition. Apparently it last several years which is hardly a transition. So why didn’t he stop this when he noticed it. He claims he didn’t notice it because he didn’t read his own newsletter. And apparently no one on his staff, his including his campaign manager, ever saw fit to tell Mr. Paul that bigotry was being promoted from his own office.  No subscriber mentioned it to him either. All his closest friends and allies who worked for him apparently conspired to keep him in the dark from what was going on right under his own nose.

That is hardly believable. To make it worse Paul’s office has stated that he will not investigate the matter. He won’t see who was on his staff at the time the newsletter was written. He won’t ask his editor, Lew Rockwell, who wrote this articles. (It should be noted that as editor Rockwell would have to either approve the articles or write them himself.)

So what about editor Rockwell? If Paul’s memory is so faulty that he can’t remember the name of the author what about Rockwell’s memory? Is it too faulty and faded? Why is Rockwell ducking the press and refusing to answer questions about his role in the newsletter? Why is Mr. Rockwell leaving his good friend out there by himself? As editor surely he could offer some evidence but he too is refusing. 

So Paul and his accomplices on the newsletter are blaming a nameless, faceless entity for work which Paul previously did not dispute as his own. So which time was Paul lying? Was he lying when accepted the articles as his own? Or now? 

I suspect it was before. I don’t think he wrote them. No matter. They went in to his publication edited by his long-time friend Lew Rockwell. Paul isn’t saying anything about why his editor allowed this to happen. He isn’t really saying anything at all.

So the first accusation, that Paul encouraged bigotry and expressed bigoted views in his newsletter is  pretty much proven. Whether the words were his own or a paid writers of his is of little importance actually. Even the Paul cult wouldn’t make this sort of exception in other circumstances. For instance, we all know that President Bush lied to the public about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Now I can assure you that while Bush repeated these statements he didn’t write them. They were written for him. That Mr. Bush had someone else put the words in his mouth doesn’t exonerate Bush for lying.

That Mr. Paul had someone else put the words in his newsletter doesn’t exonerate Mr. Paul for expressing them and distributing them. Mr. Paul has not made his case.