Ammons indictment puts all eyes on Welch 20%

By Rich Miller0%

7/10/2026, 5:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Post Hoc (False Cause), and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.2% saturation with 149 hits. Analysis detected 795 faulty-reasoning hits from 866 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.4% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,576 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.30% of the article peer group.

Rep. 
Luis Arroyo, D-Chicago, was arrested by the FBI on Oct. 28, 2019, for attempting to bribe a state senator. 
House Speaker Michael Madigan, who was under investigation himself, called on Arroyo to resign that same day. 
The next day, Rep. 
Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside, was one of three House Democrats who signed a petition to automatically trigger the creation of a Special Investigating Committee. 
Welch and the two others included the sworn federal criminal complaint against Arroyo as evidence. 
Arroyo announced his resignation just hours before the first investigating committee hearing. 
He was later sentenced to almost five years . 
On Feb. 25 of this year, now Illinois House Speaker Welch, without an announcement, kicked Rep. 
Harry Benton, D-Plainfield, out of the House Democratic caucus and stripped him of his committee assignments and House staff support. 
Columnists bug 
Columnists 
In-depth political coverage, sports analysis, entertainment reviews and cultural commentary. 
In April, my colleague Isabel Miller asked Welch if Benton should resign, but he wouldn’t respond. 
On July 1, Welch announced that he’d received an inspector general’s report and demanded that Benton resign, which Benton did two days later. 
And that brings us to Rep. 
Carol Ammons, D-Urbana, who was indicted last week by the feds on multiple charges, including paying her daughter more than $15,000 from her campaign fund disguised as a payment to what appears to be a nonexisting consultant, and then allegedly receiving kickbacks. 
Ammons is also accused of killing an appropriation for the Urbana Neighborhood Connections Center and in its place arranging more than $650,000 in the fiscal year 2020 budget for Hood Vote for Neighborhood Transformation  and then her daughter was paid out of that appropriation. 
Gov. 
JB Pritzker’s administration figured out what was going on and told Ammons and the group that this was an impermissible conflict of interest. 
Ammons’ daughter left the payroll. 
The next year, Ammons allegedly inserted a $612,000 grant to Bridgewater-Sullivan Community Life Center into the state budget. 
Ammons allegedly then assisted the group in drafting the contract to hire her daughter, and allegedly received kickbacks. 
That same daughter was also paid about $10,000 by the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, which Ammons helped with budgetary member initiatives totaling $700,000 in fiscal year 2021 and fiscal year 2022. 
The feds allege that, in total, Ammons and her daughter received benefits “in excess of $100,000.” 
The government allegedly has multiple text messages that implicate Ammons. 
She’s also accused of lying to the FBI when she said she had no knowledge of any conflict of interest with the Hood Vote group. 
Welch told reporters last week that he wouldn’t call for Ammons’ resignation because she has the right to due process. 
I asked a day later how a still-secret legislative inspector general report would qualify as due process for Benton and a public federal grand jury indictment does not for Ammons. 
I was told by a Welch spokesperson that the speaker considers the federal indictment akin to Welch’s own referral to the legislative inspector general. 
And then the adjudication happened during the legislative inspector general’s investigation and report. 
Seems a bit of a stretch. 
Welch told reporters he’d consider a special investigating committee to be “due process” if members demanded it. 
The special investigation committee can ultimately lead to a House floor vote to expel Ammons. 
However, Welch also told reporters, “I think the courts is the proper place for this. 
They have the tools available to them, and it's the proper place.” 
Welch had basically the same response when he chaired the special investigative committee looking into Madigan’s operation. 
But, unlike Ammons, Madigan had not yet been indicted. 
Also, the House voted to expel Rep. 
Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, after his arrest and before his federal bribery trial. 
And Gov. 
Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office before his federal trial. 
The argument doesn’t really hold water. 
Trick bag 
On Friday, Republicans filed paperwork to initiate the investigating committee. 
Welch appointed members to it that same day. 
And that, finally, brings us to President Donald Trump. 
We’ve seen serious problems at the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago the past several months, and in my opinion, believable allegations have been made of politically motivated prosecutions. 
The Ammons indictment was filed by the Central District of Illinois. 
I’ve seen nothing yet, which indicates that office is having the same problems as the Northern District. 
But an argument will likely be made that this is yet another politically motivated Trump-era indictment and people should wait, particularly after what happened to Sen. 
Emil Jones, III, D-Chicago. 
The splashy federal bribery case against him completely fell apart at trial. 
Lots of folks, from Pritzker on down, had demanded Jones resign when the indictment was issued. 
It also didn’t help matters that, like with the Madigan probe, only House Republicans signed the petition to initiate action against Ammons. 
It can be portrayed as partisan. 
Ammons says she’s innocent. 
I doubt she’ll resign. 
So, Welch is in a bit of a trick bag. 
Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com. 
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com . 
More about how to submit here . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.0%Rich Miller: 4.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Rich Miller: 2.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic2.5%This article: 4.6%Rich Miller: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.6%This article: 1.5%Rich Miller: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Rich Miller: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.5%Rich Miller: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.5%This article: 17.2%Rich Miller: 11.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.0%Rich Miller: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.0%This article: 2.5%Rich Miller: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias2.5%This article: 2.5%Rich Miller: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Rich Miller: 1.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.0%Rich Miller: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority4.0%This article: 3.5%Rich Miller: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.8%Rich Miller: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.8%This article: 2.8%Rich Miller: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Hasty Generalization2.8%This article: 1.0%Rich Miller: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring1.0%This article: 1.8%Rich Miller: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon1.8%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.2%Rich Miller: 2.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.2%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Rich Miller: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.7%Rich Miller: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Anecdotal3.7%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.5%Rich Miller: 3.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.5%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.0%Rich Miller: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading2.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 5.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rich Miller: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Rich Miller: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.5%

866 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.4%attributed speech802writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageEmanuel “Chris” Welch • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageEmanuel “Chris” Welch • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageEmanuel “Chris” Welch • 15 words • 0.0% coverageEmanuel “Chris” Welch • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
45%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words100% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Emanuel “Chris” Welch: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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