Chicago Man Charged with Obstructing Justice in Foiled White House UFC Attack Plot 18%

By Scott McClallen27%

6/26/2026, 1:30:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.2% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 712 faulty-reasoning hits from 728 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.9% and a BS Rank of 18% (18,132 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.80% of the article peer group.

A Chicago man has been arrested in connection with the planned violent attack at the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) event at the White House earlier this month. 
Alexander Iniguez Mercado, 20, of Chicago, was allegedly an administrator and member of Signal messaging groups that included members who appeared to communicate with others regarding the planning of a violent attack targeting the UFC event at the White House on June 14, according to an indictment returned Thursday in U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 
Seven other individuals from multiple states have been charged in connection with the planning of the violent attack. 
According to the indictment against Mercado, the day before the UFC event, a special agent from the FBI spoke with Mercado by telephone. 
The agent informed Mercado that he was calling to discuss online threats regarding the UFC event, and he asked whether Mercado planned to travel to Washington, D.C., to help with the attack, the indictment states. 
Mercado allegedly denied those plans and advised the agent that he did not want to meet with the agent. 
Mercado then uninstalled the Signal application on his phone, which caused the data on his phone relating to those messages to become unavailable, the indictment states. 
“Obstructing justice in a law enforcement investigation into a planned violent domestic attack is a profoundly serious offense,” said U.S. 
Attorney Andrew S. 
Boutros for the Northern District of Illinois. 
“The investigation in this case involved serious threats to public safety, including the safety of President Donald J. 
Trump, the 45th and 47th President of the United States of America, other members of government, as well as the many attendees and athletes who attended the event at the White House. 
Any obstructive conduct to interfere with this investigation undermines the integrity of the justice system as well as the rule of law. 
The Chicago U.S. 
Attorney’s Office will pursue all appropriate charges against those who act to obstruct law enforcement investigations because safeguarding the public depends on the full, unhindered pursuit of the evidence.” 
Mercado is charged with obstruction of justice. 
If convicted, the maximum penalty is 20 years in prison. 
“The FBI’s most important responsibility of protecting the American people means that our personnel work 24/7/365 to evaluate the ever-changing threat landscape and disrupt acts of violence before they occur,” said Special Agent in Charge Douglas S. 
DePodesta of the FBI’s Chicago Field Office. 
“Thanks to the partnerships on the FBI Chicago’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, to include the relentless work by the U.S. 
Secret Service, this attack was successfully foiled before any innocent people were gravely injured or killed. 
While the FBI will continue to use every available resource to hold accountable those who seek to terrorize our community, we urge the public to join us in this effort by immediately calling 9-1-1, 1-800-CALL-FBI, or submitting to tips.fbi.gov if they encounter any suspicious or threatening behavior, in-person or online.” 
Mercado was arrested on Thursday. 
He is scheduled to make an initial appearance in federal court in Chicago today at 3:00 p.m. before U.S. 
Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. 
Fuentes for the Northern District of Illinois. 
“The safety and security of the President of the United States and all those under our protection is the U.S. 
Secret Service’s highest priority,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge James Morley of the U.S. 
Secret Service (USSS) Chicago Field Office. 
“We approach this mission with dedication and vigilance in the current heightened threat environment. 
Successfully carrying out our protective mission is strengthened by strong partnerships. 
I want to thank the FBI for its steadfast collaboration and the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois for its relentless pursuit of justice.” 
The FBI and USSS are investigating the case. 
The U.S. 
Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois is prosecuting the case with valuable assistance provided by the Justice Department’s National Security Division. 
An indictment merely contains allegations. 
All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. 
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.4%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.2%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.3%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Scott McClallen: 7.7%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 1.4%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias1.4%This article: 16.2%Scott McClallen: 8.5%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias16.2%This article: 3.6%Scott McClallen: 1.9%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Scott McClallen: 2.8%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Scott McClallen: 1.4%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect13.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.3%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.9%Scott McClallen: 4.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority9.9%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.3%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.2%Scott McClallen: 10.3%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion9.2%This article: 1.8%Scott McClallen: 1.1%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question1.8%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.4%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.7%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.7%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.9%Scott McClallen: 2.0%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote9.9%This article: 2.7%Scott McClallen: 3.2%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection2.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 5.5%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 8.7%Scott McClallen: 4.0%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination8.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Scott McClallen: 5.5%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.3%This article: 3.7%Scott McClallen: 3.8%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

728 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers49%attributed speech371writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros • 20 words • 100.0% coverageU.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros • 3 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros • 7 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros • 18 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros • 32 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros • 22 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros • 3 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDouglas S. DePodesta • 37 words • 100.0% coverageDouglas S. DePodesta • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDouglas S. DePodesta • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDouglas S. DePodesta • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDouglas S. DePodesta • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJames Morley • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJames Morley • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJames Morley • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJames Morley • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJames Morley • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJames Morley • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJames Morley • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Douglas S. DePodesta

95%flagged-word coverage
130 attributed words36% of attributed speech22% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination+35.0 ptsWriter: 3.5%Douglas S. DePodesta: 38.5%38.5%Unattributed Quote+28.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Douglas S. DePodesta: 28.5%28.5%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Douglas S. DePodesta: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Douglas S. DePodesta: 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.