Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brian's avatar

Similar comment as last time. Jeff lacks appropriate skepticism about data. The previous batch of data was revised upward while people weren't paying close attention. He didn't bother to address that.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/19/opinion/fbi-update-proves-donald-trump-was-right-on-rising-crime/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/sep/26/fbi-crime-data-undercounts-killings-in-chicago-oth/

Also, the FBI data on Chicago alone was short 118 murders relative to Chicago's data.

When a known liar tells you something (the FBI, or Cheka) you don't have any new information. This is the same organization that had the Hunter Biden laptop story suppressed as Russian disinformation while having had said laptop in their possession for a year and having verified it. Between DEI incompetence and a culture of lying, why should anything they say be taken at face value? Again, they miscounted Chicago murders versus the number of murders Chicago reported by 118. Their explanation is BS.

His weak attempt to address the discrepancy in various ways (UCR vs NCVS) crime can be estimated eliminates any trust in his work for me. If you don't know why two measurements of the same thing vastly uncorrelated but assume its fine when they resume correlation at some time in the future, you don't understand how to analyze data.

I've attempted to pick apart your stats previously and could never find a problem. You've noted how the numbers don't support your previously assumed beliefs in the past. That makes your work trustworthy. He fails that test. That makes me assume he would cherry pick data and manipulate it to support his beliefs. No trust=I don't care what he says.

The TCF article... thanks for the introduction.

Expand full comment
Charlotte Wollstonecraft's avatar

The conman who attempted to defraud Don Gaetz was not, as far as I can tell, a "former DOJ official." Stephen Alford is a Florida real estate developer with a history of fraud convictions. I can't find that he has any connection to the DOJ. He seems to have noticed that Matt Gaetz was under investigation for paying for sex with underage girls, and then attempted to leverage that circumstance to con Don Gaetz out of $25M.

While I'm sure the DOJ is impressively corrupt, this particular case does not seem to prove it.

The DOJ has already arrested and charged Alford for this con. Don Gaetz personally helped them to catch him by wearing a wire. The case is solved. I'm not sure why Matt Gaetz needs to run the DOJ in order to "find out exactly who did that to his dad."

Moreover, it's unclear how a sex trafficker of underage girls could possibly be qualified for any public service role. It seems irresponsible to refer to the investigation into him paying a 17 year old for statutory rape as a "sex investigation," as if this were just a scandalous liaison between consenting adults.

Why summarize the situation the way you did?

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts