City Council joins the chorus demanding Boutros' resignation as US attorney 83%

By Fran Spielman70%

7/15/2026, 10:27:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Bandwagon, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.6% saturation with 347 hits. Analysis detected 1,530 faulty-reasoning hits from 624 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.9% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,738 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.90% of the article peer group.

After a surprisingly emotional debate, the City Council approved a resolution Wednesday demanding the resignation of embattled U.S. 
Attorney Andrew Boutros. 
Only a handful of alderpersons opposed the resolution, which adds the City Council to the chorus of those demanding Boutros’ resignation and urges the Justice Department to “ensure a full review of obligations and matters connected to Operation Midway Blitz, the Broadview prosecutions and related proceedings.” 
Northwest Side Ald. 
Jim Gardiner (45th) accused his colleagues of political hypocrisy and advised the City Council to “stay in our lane.” 
Before meddling in a political quagmire they have no control over, Gardiner said City Council members should be more concerned with, as he put it, “cleaning up our own backyard.” 
Gardiner was referring to former Chicago Inspector General Deborah Witzburg and the city's Board of Ethics that he claimed “spent nearly $220,000 in order to get $20,000 out of me” after an ethics investigation that amounted to a “political witch hunt.” 
Boutros is facing a credibility crisis that began with the May 21 collapse of the “Broadview Six” case because of apparent prosecutor misconduct. 
Damage has continued to spread, even in cases unrelated to the six Operation Midway Blitz protesters. 
Gardiner said he’s not belittling the “seriousness” of those allegations, adding, “It’s terrible. 
If there’s any misconduct that was done, they should have to pay for that 100%" 
Far Northwest Side Ald. 
Nick Sposato (38th), one of the Council’s most conservative members, said he had planned to oppose the resolution quietly, but couldn’t help but speak out. 
Sposato said both Sens. 
Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth appropriately “asked for” Boutros’ resignation. 
But he added,  We’ve got to act like we’re the big heroes. 
We’re not gonna deal with ICE. 
But we don’t say a damn f-ing thing about what happened with Sheridan Gorman. 
Not a thing. 
Listening to her mother on TV  it was painful.” 
Gorman is the 18-year-old Loyola University student who was shot and killed while walking along the lakefront with her friends in April, allegedly by Jose Medina, a Venezuelan immigrant. 
Family of slain Chicago college student outraged after accused killer found with knife in Cook County Jail 
He added, “We don’t care about Jose Medina," Sposato added. 
"We care about Boutros… We know what he did was wrong. 
I’m not saying what he did was right. 
But here we are  we have to have drama about this… I’m not gonna fall for this publicity stunt.” 
Ald. 
Andre Vasquez (40th), chair of the Council’s Hispanic Caucus, tried to steer the conversation back to the Boutros controversy. 
“At every stage of his prosecution of the Broadview Six, he has demonstrated  not impartiality and a dedication to justice, but deception, unprecedented misconduct and a willingness to throw away the values of his office and his country in order to secure a political win for this administration,” Vasquez said. 
Noting that fallout from the scandal has already forced the U.S. attorney’s office to drop fraud charges against former officials of Loretto Hospital, Vasquez said he is proud to “join my colleagues today in demanding that he step down from his role, which he has already abandoned in principle.” 
“In a truly just version of reality, Andrew Boutros wouldn’t just resign. 
He would be held accountable to the fullest extend of the law,” Vasquez said. 
“But in the absence of principled leaders who will do the right thing, we need to do whatever we can to call out the injustice we see, and put pressure on our elected officials to act on it. 
This behavior isn’t just unethical. 
It is antithetical to a just society, and we cannot let it stand.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.1%Fran Spielman: 3.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Fran Spielman: 2.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.6%Fran Spielman: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Fran Spielman: 7.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.8%Fran Spielman: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 3.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Fran Spielman: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 55.6%Fran Spielman: 10.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias55.6%This article: 6.6%Fran Spielman: 2.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias6.6%This article: 3.0%Fran Spielman: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error3.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Fran Spielman: 3.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias4.6%This article: 2.2%Fran Spielman: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 2.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Fran Spielman: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Recency Bias2.1%This article: 3.0%Fran Spielman: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Fran Spielman: 3.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem6.3%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.6%Fran Spielman: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority1.6%This article: 5.4%Fran Spielman: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%False Dilemma5.4%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.2%Fran Spielman: 4.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Hasty Generalization11.2%This article: 7.9%Fran Spielman: 2.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring7.9%This article: 15.2%Fran Spielman: 3.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon15.2%This article: 20.4%Fran Spielman: 21.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion20.4%This article: 9.9%Fran Spielman: 2.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Begging the Question9.9%This article: 11.5%Fran Spielman: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.5%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.4%Fran Spielman: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Fran Spielman: 5.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 1.9%Fran Spielman: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman1.9%This article: 2.1%Fran Spielman: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.7%Fran Spielman: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote3.7%This article: 3.2%Fran Spielman: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 5.6%Fran Spielman: 4.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice5.6%This article: 8.2%Fran Spielman: 4.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination8.2%This article: 12.8%Fran Spielman: 2.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fran Spielman: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

624 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers70%attributed speech190writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJim Gardiner (45th) • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJim Gardiner (45th) • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJim Gardiner (45th) • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJim Gardiner (45th) • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJim Gardiner (45th) • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 25 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 4 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 13 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 8 words • 0.0% coverageNick Sposato (38th) • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAndre Vasquez (40th) • 51 words • 100.0% coverageAndre Vasquez (40th) • 49 words • 0.0% coverageAndre Vasquez (40th) • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAndre Vasquez (40th) • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAndre Vasquez (40th) • 38 words • 100.0% coverageAndre Vasquez (40th) • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAndre Vasquez (40th) • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andre Vasquez (40th)

92%flagged-word coverage
182 attributed words42% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination+28.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andre Vasquez (40th): 28.0%28.0%Politically Left Leaning B+12.8 ptsWriter: 15.3%Andre Vasquez (40th): 28.0%28.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.4 ptsWriter: 18.4%Andre Vasquez (40th): 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%Andre Vasquez (40th): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.