Longtime Republican Pollster Gave GOP Dire Warning About Midterms
'Republicans' approval rating remains unchanged'
Corrupt cops, silent press: Legacy media ignores Capitol Police’s decades of corruption
The corporate media has earned a reputation for ignoring, downplaying, or outright denying stories that challenge its ideological leanings — from the lab-leak theory of COVID-19 to the obvious decline in President Joe Biden’s mental and physical fitness. These stories eventually became impossible to deny. But in many cases, the recognition came too late to matter.
So far, that reckoning hasn’t come for the United States Capitol Police.
'The corruption persists because of what they know about bad Congress members and their bad behaviors.'
For years, allegations of corruption have dogged the USCP. Yet, local and national media outlets continue to turn a blind eye — even after an officer with a scandal-ridden history was named interim chief of the department.
Last year, Blaze News investigative reporter Steve Baker published a detailed exposé uncovering deep-rooted misconduct within the USCP. His report alleged theft of government funds, perjury, fraud, and forgery involving high-ranking officers. Among the most damning revelations: Former Captain Sean Gallagher and two lieutenants under his command reportedly participated in a 2010 overtime scam.
Gallagher allegedly forged his supervisor’s signature on overtime forms, according to a 2012 internal investigation by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility. He later claimed the forgery “never resulted in personal gain.” That revelation built on a 2014 National Journal report about the overtime abuse, though the earlier article did not name the officers involved.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations and the clarity of the documentation, Baker’s story received little to no attention from other media. Not even Washington-based outlets like the Washington Post or WUSA9 reported on the claims.
“Why is it that Blaze Media has done an exclusive on multiple cases of Capitol Police corruption, and the other media — especially the local media, who should be holding local agencies accountable — are ignoring the story?” Baker said in an interview.
RELATED: Favoritism, cover-ups reveal culture of corruption in US Capitol Police leadership
That silence has consequences. As media scrutiny wanes, institutional accountability weakens — and careers flourish despite serious allegations.
On June 2, the U.S. Capitol Police announced Gallagher would serve as interim chief. Despite the prior disciplinary record, Gallagher has continued to ascend the department’s ranks. The appointment drew immediate criticism from within the agency.
The U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee, which represents officers on the force, issued a rare rebuke, stating Gallagher “fails to meet the standard of trust and integrity required” to lead. Their public opposition stirred some interest among local reporters, but national media coverage remained scarce.
Departing Chief J. Thomas Manger defended the promotion, arguing Gallagher’s familiarity with the department outweighed past controversy. “If they pick someone from the inside, they’re going to know what our mission is,” Manger said before retiring. He accused the union of orchestrating a “smear campaign.”
Still, the union’s resistance had an effect. Within days, the department appointed Michael Sullivan, former acting police chief in Phoenix, to take over the USCP permanently.
'It has far-ranging implications. The Capitol Police are charged with protecting every member of Congress. And yet no one wants to cover it.'
But for Baker, the deeper problem remains unaddressed.
“These cops know where all the bodies are buried,” he said. “The corruption persists because of what they know about bad Congress members and their bad behaviors.”
RELATED: Capitol Police name permanent chief hours after union slams controversial interim pick
Baker pointed to former Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman, who was accused of intentional inaction during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol protests. She later landed a chief position at the University of California, Berkeley.
Too often, he said, officers with serious black marks on their records go on to secure law enforcement jobs elsewhere — thanks, in part, to systemic failures in reporting misconduct.
“All of these bad actors in law enforcement, when they have these types of disciplinary actions against them, that is supposed to be reported to a national database called the Lewis Registry,” Baker explained.
The Lewis Registry serves two critical functions: alerting prospective employers of past disciplinary actions and making such records accessible to defense attorneys if an officer testifies in court.
In Baker’s view, the Capitol Police scandals should concern more than just local watchdogs or city beat reporters.
“This is not just a local D.C. story,” he said. “It has far-ranging implications. The Capitol Police are charged with protecting every member of Congress. And yet no one wants to cover it.”
The U.S. Capitol Police, the Washington Post, and WUSA9 did not respond to Blaze News' requests for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Six years to removal? Inside America’s broken immigration courts
In drab, windowless rooms strung along a tight corridor, migrants who have flooded into the United States in recent years trickle before immigration judges each weekday morning.
These makeshift courtrooms are a far cry from the scorched border with Mexico and busy ports and airports through which these millions of immigrants have entered the United States, almost all illegally. But despite the differences in miles, atmosphere, and often language, the people appearing in U.S. immigration court (“alien respondents,” in legal terms) know what is afoot.
Migrants displayed a savvy understanding of immigration law that allows the adjudication of the proceedings to stretch for years.
In many cases, they are making their first appearance after being in the U.S. for years, and with careful pleadings and use of appeals, many know they can stay here for years to come. While Trump administration immigration tactics — such as arrests and deportations — dominate the headlines, the situation in court, where most of the final decisions will be made, is another thing the administration is trying to change.
“A surprising number of the aliens know how to work the system in an attempt to run out the clock on the Trump administration, by requesting serial continuances and filing frivolous or otherwise questionable appeals and by motions to reopen,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge now with the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes wide-open immigration. “Some will be successful, but as the recent immigration court arrests indicate, the administration is attempting to limit those efforts.”
Recently, RealClearInvestigations observed days of immigration court proceedings to gain insight into the current state of a system with a backlog of more than 3.6 million people, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks immigration court figures through monthly Freedom of Information Act requests. New Orleans is but one thread in a sprawling web of often obscure courts, stretching from Massachusetts to Washington and from Saipan to Puerto Rico.
From a first appearance to an asylum hearing, the New Orleans courts seemed busy. This reflects the fact that historically, most immigrants to the U.S. follow their legal schedule, which begins with a “Notice to Appear” being issued to them either when they are apprehended at the border or subsequently after they have been paroled into the 48 contiguous states.
RELATED: Mass deportation or bust: Trump’s one shot to get it right
“It’s never been the case that people aren’t showing up en masse,” said Kevin A. Gregg, an immigration attorney in California who hosts the weekly “Immigration Review” podcast. “The number of those who show up has always been very high, especially among people who have been in the U.S. a very long time.”
Paradoxically, however, the Trump administration’s recent vow to push arrests of illegal immigrants to 3,000 a day, along with some changes it has made to how it handles court cases, could serve to make attendance less regular, according to Gregg and others critical of Trump’s push. As attorneys and court officials told RealClearInvestigations, “Never underestimate the community,” meaning arrivals know the system from those who have gone through it before them. Now, if conventional wisdom says court appearances could lead to an earlier expulsion from the U.S., those here illegally will shy away.
“With immigration court specifically, ICE has been dismissing court proceedings in order to then immediately detain noncitizens and place them in expedited removal proceedings where they have far less rights and no eligibility for bond,” Gregg said. “Whether correct or not, many noncitizens will likely begin to view this as a trap and may not show up to immigration court out of fear. I don’t condone not showing up, of course, but I believe it’s a possible foreseeable consequence of what ICE is doing right now.”
Already, the Trump administration’s aggressive approach has sparked litigation and civil disturbances, from a Milwaukee judge allegedly helping “alien respondents” escape criminal proceedings to the recent riots in Los Angeles.
A long process
One late May morning, there were four New Orleans immigration courts operating, with a total of nearly 140 people on the docket, most of them first appearances. On this day, no-shows composed a very small percentage of those on the “master calendars,” as the morning dockets are known. In Judge Joseph La Rocca’s courtroom, for instance, only five of the more than 30 respondents listed on the master calendar did not appear; they were quickly handled “in absentia” and deemed removable.
That same day, in Judge Alberto A. De Puy’s courtroom, as many as six languages were used. The court has a Spanish translator present at all times, but for other languages, interpreters on the East Coast join by phone. In the hearings RealClearInvestigations witnessed, these involved Arabic, Hindi, Hassaniya, Turkish, and Konkani, reflecting a large percentage of Middle Eastern or Asian immigrants. Paperwork in the court’s small waiting room is available in seven languages, including Creole and Wolof, an African tongue.
De Puy’s master calendar hearing was a Zoom session with migrants at the federal detention center in Jena, Louisiana. There, men in dull gray scrubs sat in rows, while De Puy scrambled to find translators. This proceeding was further complicated by a protest outside the Jena facility, which has gained notoriety by holding the Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and other foreign nationals arrested by federal authorities since President Trump took office.
No one knows exactly how many people appear in U.S. immigration court each day. “That would be a great statistic, wouldn’t it?” said Susan Long, director of Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. But there are more than 700 U.S. immigration judges, whom the attorney general appoints to the administrative posts under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. If somehow the New Orleans morning sessions RealClearInvestigations followed could be extended daily to each judge’s courtroom, perhaps a dent could be made in the backlog, which includes more than 2 million pending asylum cases, according to TRAC.
That’s a fanciful assumption, of course, and at first glance, the looming numbers seem daunting to the Trump administration’s goal of sharply reducing or clearing the dockets. Still, some experts see promising signs as the figures for illegal crossings plummet.
If conventional wisdom says court appearances could lead to an earlier expulsion from the US, those here illegally will shy away.
“The situation is improving,” Arthur said. “It’s as if Trump patched a hole in the side of a boat, and now he’s bailing out the water the boat took in.”
For all the hue and cry about due process protections that have captivated activists and the federal bench over the past four months, the migrants appearing in New Orleans displayed a savvy understanding of immigration law that allows the adjudication of the proceedings to stretch for years.
The respondents sat quietly on wooden benches, in some cases accompanied by children. Most were neatly dressed and with their hair carefully braided or combed. The children appeared to be something of a prop, as each time they appeared, the judge asked that they attend school instead of court. Even on a first appearance, many of the respondents seemed to have a good idea of what would happen.
Most master calendar cases involved a “notice to appear,” and few of those were recent. For example, most of the people RCI observed in court the morning of May 22 had received their notice to appear a year and a half ago, in 2023, although a handful had received them as recently as last December.
Few of the immigrants had lawyers, which court observers called a wise move. If it was a first appearance, the judge asked if they wanted representation, noting that while the Sixth Amendment does not entitle them to an attorney, the court maintains a list of immigration attorneys who may offer their services at affordable rates or pro bono. Invariably, the person requested time to find a lawyer and thus received another court date — on these May days, that was set for seven months later in December.
For the others not requesting more time to find a lawyer, the judge rapidly read boilerplate language and determined that the person had entered the U.S. illegally and was subject to removal. At that point, the judge asked the respondents if they wanted to “designate a country for removal should removal become necessary.” Here, the respondents or their attorneys invariably declined.
This is a well-understood delay tactic that often fails. Despite the lack of response, the judge quickly set a country for removal and moved to do the same for a removal hearing. The judges perused their computer screens, presumably for scheduling purposes, and in some cases then scheduled that hearing for 2029.
In other words, almost all the “alien respondents” were given a lot more time. It was not unusual to see people having six years or more in the U.S. between the day of their arrival and a removal proceeding.
‘A lot more detention’
The legal process is different for those in detention, and attorneys and court officials told RCI that “there is a lot more detention” now under the Trump administration. Judge De Puy’s master calendar involved the detained men in Jena on one screen, with the occasional immigration lawyer cutting in from a separate office and a government lawyer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor appearing on yet another video screen.
De Puy gave those making a first appearance months to try to obtain counsel, but he was less forgiving of those who were making a second appearance and asked for more time after failing to obtain representation. Several men — all those appearing were men — requested more time, but De Puy did not grant it in the cases RCI observed.
Some men requested “voluntary departure.” Arthur said this is a ploy that, in the past, allowed immigrants to melt into the interior, thereby delaying their cases, and the government lawyer seemed to have that in mind as he agreed to “voluntary departure” only “with safeguards,” which meant the men would remain in detention until their travel arrangements were made. Just how that might happen and when, given that the migrant is responsible for them, was unclear.
RELATED: Katy Perry drops weird post in support of ICE rioters and gets nailed with a history lesson
There were other oddities. For example, De Puy twice asked a man from India, who entered the U.S. in December 2023, if he would like to “designate a country of removal.” After not answering the first time, the man then replied, “I can’t go back to India.”
“The court is going to designate India as the country of removal,” De Puy said immediately, at which point the man said he would “like to go back to India” and requested “voluntary departure.”
Of those migrants held at Jena who appeared that morning, only those seeking voluntary departure seemed destined to leave the U.S. soon.
The emphasis on detention is not the only major change the proceedings appeared to have under Trump, compared to when RealClearInvestigations first visited immigration court in 2022. Then, the government attorney would often offer what was dubbed “prosecutorial discretion.”
This amounted to a “get out of court free” pass. The judge told the person receiving prosecutorial discretion, “You are free to go and live your life, and the government has no interest in removing you from the country.”
Biden-era prosecutorial discretion
It’s not clear how many illegal immigrants benefited from the Biden-era prosecutorial discretion, as the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions about it in 2022 or now. Those who received it were in addition to the more than 2.8 million the Biden administration simply paroled into the country immediately, a novel twist to immigration law subsequently ruled illegal by federal judges.
Under Trump, a similar step is taken with a different tone. In some instances, the Department of Homeland Security’s lawyer announced the government was “dropping charges” as the person is “no longer an enforcement priority.” Doing so does not change the fact that these people have previously been ruled “removable,” and by dropping the charges, the Department of Homeland Security can arrest and deport the illegal immigrant.
Of those migrants who appeared in court that morning, only those seeking voluntary departure seemed destined to leave the US soon.
That has led to arrests right outside immigration courts from Boston to New Orleans and elsewhere. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can’t be outside every courtroom every day, this emphatic new move is precisely the one that could lead immigrants to eschew court as word spreads in the community about what is happening.
Judge La Rocca seemed concerned about this development, which, like some of the novel twists to immigration law under the Biden administration, has sparked federal litigation. At one point, when the government suddenly moved to drop the charges, La Rocca asked the immigrant if he wanted to accept that arrangement, which would leave him “without status” and still eligible for removal, or if he wished to continue to a removal proceeding. The overarching message was that the U.S. may move to deport the person.
La Rocca warned the government to be up front about what this might mean for the respondent, saying he “had heard of cases where he walked out the door and was arrested.”
Although the administration has endured criticism over the lack of due process for migrants deported on planes to El Salvador, judges in New Orleans unfailingly made clear to those in court the options available to them. In nearly every case, when the judge asked a person if he wanted to request asylum, the answer was “yes.”
Seeking asylum
That requires another future court date, usually years down the road. Asylum proceedings are not open to the public absent approval from the judge and the seeker, but RCI obtained such permission to witness two hearings.
In the first, a couple from Honduras who came to the United States in April 2022 had requested asylum on the grounds that they were afraid to return. The woman testified that her brother had been murdered and that when they tried to bring information about the case to Honduran police, in a town hours away from their hometown, a masked man brandished a gun at them. Suspicious cars then began to lurk around their home.
The government attorney asked why they could not move somewhere else in Honduras, or if they had tried to go anywhere other than the U.S. They had not, they testified. The husband said his sister is associated with drug gangs, and consequently, the couple did not feel safe anywhere in Honduras. The woman testified she never planned to immigrate, but for their family’s welfare, they fled here.
La Rocca considered the case privately for some 90 minutes, then denied the asylum application. He told the couple he believed their testimony, but that their case did not meet the asylum requirements, which specify credible evidence that the applicant fears discrimination at home because of race, sex, religion, membership in social groups, or fear of torture.
RELATED: Majority of Americans support deportation of all illegal immigrants
But that does not end the couple’s immigration court odyssey. La Rocca asked if they wished to appeal his decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. When they said they did, La Rocca told them they must file that appeal in the next 30 days, which would lead to yet another court appearance.
The second hearing RCI witnessed was before Judge Eric Marsteller. That case involved a 2022 application from an El Salvador woman and her two sons, who have each also filed separate asylum claims.
For unclear reasons, the woman’s attorneys withdrew in February, and she told Marsteller that she had been unable to find a replacement since then. Although she has family in the U.S. — a sister who has been granted asylum, a brother, and her mother — all of the supporting evidence for her claim of horrific abuse from her father came from a letter sent by a former partner in El Salvador.
Marsteller accepted the letter but told her it couldn’t be entered into the record because it was in Spanish. A man in court, identified as her stepfather, stated that the woman and her sons live with him in Louisiana, and he informed the judge that he would be responsible for them.
After more than an hour of the hearing, during which the sons departed the courtroom when the woman described her allegations of abuse, Marsteller asked the government for its position. The government attorney informed the court that the notice the woman had received was for a master calendar appearance, not an asylum hearing. Startled, Marsteller was forced to schedule another hearing. It will be in December 2026.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.
Secularists think they won at the Supreme Court — but they’ll lose in the end
The Supreme Court disappointed Christians when it deadlocked in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond.
The justices' 4-4 split keeps in place the ruling of the Oklahoma Supreme Court that St. Isidore of Seville Virtual School may not operate as a charter school in the state — for now, anyway.
Denying American families access to the winning combination of a Catholic charter school is not only unconstitutional but also unconscionable.
The court’s “non-decision decision” came about, in part, because Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. Barrett did not explain her reasons, but her close ties to Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Clinic and her friendship with a chief adviser to the school likely played a role.
How this happened
In the face of progressive accusations of unethical behavior, the justices recently agreed to a code of conduct that represents “a codification of principles” governing their conduct. Importantly, a justice is “presumed impartial” and “has an obligation to sit unless disqualified.” The code adds, presciently, that “the absence of one Justice risks the affirmance of a lower court decision by an evenly divided Court — potentially preventing the Court from providing a uniform national rule of decision on an important issue.”
Back in 2003, Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett once served as a law clerk, denied a motion for his recusal based on his friendship with then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a named party in a case before the Court.
"The people must have confidence in the integrity of the Justices, and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot-faults," Scalia wrote.
In any event, what is done is done. And more importantly, Barrett’s recusal is not binding for future cases.
The victory that wasn’t
Secularists and opponents of school choice have been celebrating the outcome, even though split decisions do not constitute binding legal precedent.
As Notre Dame Law Professor and Supreme Court scholar Richard Garnett observed, “The do-nothing denouement in this particular round of litigation does not preclude other courts, in other cases, from vindicating the no-discrimination rule and permitting religious schools to participate in charter-school programs.”
Garnett is right. The twin religion clauses of the First Amendment — the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause — permit certification of religious schools like St. Isidore’s as charter schools.
Take, for example, the court’s recent decisions involving the Free Exercise guarantee and school choice initiatives. When the court struck down the “No-Aid” provision in Montana’s state constitution that excluded religious schools and families from a publicly funded scholarship program for students attending private schools, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed the Free Exercise Clause’s demand for fairness.
“A state need not subsidize private education,” he observed. “But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
Similarly, in Carson v. Makin, the court found that Maine violated the Constitution when it excluded religious schools from participating in a voucher program for rural students. Roberts, again writing for the court, explained that “the State pays tuition for certain students at private schools — so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.”
No clause against faith
Allowing religious schools such as St. Isidore’s to participate in a state’s charter school program is merely a natural application of this principle of fairness. But what about the Establishment Clause?
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued that certifying St. Isidore’s as a charter school would violate the Establishment Clause.
His argument has some appeal, particularly for secularists who want public schools to have a virtual monopoly over America’s educational system. Granted, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause prohibits public schools from providing religious instruction. Private schools, by contrast, are free to do so. Charter schools receive public funding, but they are privately established and controlled schools with minimal regulatory oversight by the government.
Consequently, charter schools are not state actors. And because they are not state actors, a charter school’s endorsement of any particular religion does not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Success secularism can't match
Charter schools currently exist in 45 states and the District of Columbia. A recent study reveals that charter-school students “show greater academic gains than their peers in traditional public schools.” The study also found that “charter students in poverty had stronger growth, equal to seventeen additional days of learning in math and twenty-three additional days of learning in reading, than their [traditional public school] peers in poverty.”
As for the benefits of a Catholic education, Catholic school students “continue to outpace public schools in math and reading, while public school student achievement has not returned to pre-pandemic levels and reading scores continue to decline following a sobering trend last reported in 2022.”
Denying American families access to the winning combination of a Catholic charter school, then, is not only unconstitutional but also unconscionable.
The split decision affirming the Oklahoma Supreme Court means that families in the Sooner State cannot yet benefit from the stellar Catholic education offered by St. Isidore's as a charter school.
Still, it needs repeating: The order does not set precedent. The question of whether the Constitution allows a state to exclude religious schools from its charter program is not settled.
A call for clarification will likely be before the court soon and, with a full bench, we should expect that principles of fairness and religious freedom will prevail.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com