Oh that's a neat trick

Not really. Quick Google shows a massive disparity in indictments and convictions.
Clinton lied about a consensual affair.
Reagan trained Al Queda, sold weapons to Iran, ignored AIDS and funded genocide in South America.
Obama wore a tan suit. Bush lies the country into a devastating war.

By the numbers of indictments, convictions, imprisonments etc. Republicans win on total numbers. But we could run around all day and night on this. Who’s served more total hours in prison? We could break down who was convicted for what and debate with folks if all different options what types of convictions are worse and which circumstances are worse.

We can debate who woulda shoulda coulda been convicted but they had leverage, had stacked the courts or the sentiments of the time were this or that. Look at our current President. There’s plenty of room to argue that he’d have been impeached sooner or found guilty of this or that but for his meddling and connections and what have you not.

So it all goes back to square one. If my whole family is free and your whole family is in jail- does that mean we are clean and you are crooks? Or does that mean my family are master criminals and possibly even WORSE criminals in the sense we are better at crime. You can run around and around in circles all you like with it- but all data is subject to interpretation and people’s biases tend to guide these interpretations.

10 for mental backflips.

That’s sort of the point. My point isn’t that you are “wrong.” My point is that to be considered “right” you must convince those opposed to your view that you are right. Someone had to convince doctors to wash their hands- the fact they were right about germs didn’t mean anything if no one was listening. However simply quoting a statistic without context and depth doesn’t prove anything.

While I’m inclined to agree with your findings- would I say the burden of proof to label our mutual opinion as fact has been met? No. Spurious correlations and other things exist in data analysis. The logic that more republicans are indicted so republicans are more corrupt is the same logic bigots use when they say more people of color are in prison than “whites.” The numbers show that is clearly true- but the oft cited conclusion “well there is your proof minorities are more inherently criminal!” Is flawed as it doesn’t examine WHY it might be so- just that it is.

We know that there are biases and circumstances which contribute to a higher incarceration rate for certain groups, and we have no evidence that shows some genetic or biological predetermination to crime with certain groups. So saying “more of these people are in jail- therefore more of these people are criminals...” doesn’t quite work. It’s like noticing your product sales spike under a full moon and assuming that the moon compelled people to spend money. That’s how you get witch trials and superstition- not how you logically solve problems. There are more steps than numbers, assumption, conclusion.