While we still have not seen the redacted portions of it, the now-released Oct. 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court by the FBI and the Obama administration to spy on Carter Page proves once and for all that the government did rely on the DNC and Clinton campaign-funded dossier from Fusion GPS and British spy Christopher Steele in order to spy on the Trump campaign.

The document, released to Judicial Watch via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), also appears to confirm the account given in the Feb. 2018 memorandum by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that noted that the origins of the dossier were not revealed to the court: “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.”

This was the same dossier that FBI Director James Comey had testified in Jan. 2017 as being “salacious and unverified.”

The last renewal, at least as we can see in the FOIA response, came in June 2017, after Special Counsel Robert Mueller had been appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The Steele dossier pinned the alleged Russian intelligence hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, which were published on Wikileaks, on the Trump campaign. Steele alleged his source had said “there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia.

Steele elaborated, stating in July 2016, “This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared… Inter alia, Source E, acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the WikiLeaks platform. The reason for using WikiLeaks was ‘plausible deniability’ and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team.”

But the FISA application, at least the unredacted portions, never go that far. The American people need to know why. Why was Steele so sure, but the FBI had doubts? Why not cite Steele’s central charge? That the Trump campaign had “full knowledge” of the hack. Wasn’t that true?

Since that time, the Mueller indictment of the Russian spies said to have hacked the DNC and Podesta emails does not name then-campaign manager Paul Manafort or campaign advisor Carter Page, differing from Steele’s claims via his infamous dossier that the Trump campaign had coordinated with Russia on the hack and publication of emails.

Instead, the Mueller team has already appeared to rule out Manafort having had anything to do with collusion with Russia on anything, let alone the Wikileaks publication. In a July 6 court filing, the special counsel stated of the Manafort trial, “The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government…” To be sure, none of the charges against Manafort have anything to do with hacking the DNC or publishing the emails on Wikileaks despite Steele’s claims to the contrary.

As for Carter Page, who the FBI simultaneously claimed was a Russian agent and a target for Russian recruitment, he has not been charged with anything. In fact, Page had cooperated with the FBI in 2013 and helped the agency prosecute three Russian spies. He appeared to be victim of those spies, yet now it was being described as a recruiting attempt. Did the FBI mention the fact that the recruiting attempt was apparently unsuccessful?

Which brings us back to the FISA application, which enabled the government to spy on Page and review his contacts and presumably contacts of contacts between Oct. 2016 through June 2017. That should have also included all Trump campaign-related communications predating Oct. 2016. Was Page a backdoor to spy on the Trump campaign?

The renewal applications that came after the election appear to be copies of the original, with minor details changed, including later admission that Steele had leaked his intelligence to American news outlets, probably to have an impact on the U.S. elections.

While we do not know what the redacted portions of the application state, we do know that by Jan. 2017, when it had been submitted twice, Comey testified to Congress under oath that it was “salacious and unverified.” Yet it was still being renewed. Did the FBI express such doubts in the FISA application? At least in the unredacted portions, that cannot be seen. If they had been, the application might have never been granted.

Ever since, a cloud of suspicion has appeared over the presidency of Donald Trump.

The Steele dossier’s publication in Jan. 2017 greatly compounded the perceptions that the President was a Russian agent. That in turn has absolutely affected the discharge of Trump’s duties, with his critics suggesting he ought not have high-level, one-on-one summits with Russian President Vladimir Putin — even if the subject matter includes essential matters such as nuclear arms control — as a result.

This is beyond whether Trump or even the American people accept the findings of the intelligence community on the Russian hack.

But for what it’s worth, there were real reasons for skepticism of the 2016 Russian election interference allegations at the time, including: 1) The Jan. 3, 2017 Sean Hannity interview with Julian Assange, wherein Wikileaks emphatically denied that Russia was their source for the emails; and 2) Craig Murray, appearing to speak for Wikileaks, said that the emails were from a party insider in Dec. 2016.

Both of these were prior to pronouncements from U.S. intelligence in Jan. 2017 that it was a Russian hack.

The reports directly contradicted each other, but all you needed was to have already believed the first reports that it was not a hack but a leak, and deemed them credible in order to question the findings headed into 2017.

Everything got compounded by the CNN, Buzzfeed the charges from the Steele dossier alleging collusion. Suddenly, it appeared intelligence sources were saying not only had Russia hacked the DNC, but that the Trump campaign had helped. Those who doubted the President was a Russian agent pretty much doubted everything else to do with it. Meddling and collusion got conflated.

The DNI didn’t publish until Jan. 6, 2017.

Buzzfeed published the dossier on Jan. 10, 2017. At the same time, Michael Cohen appeared to discredit the dossier by suggesting he had never been to Prague. Later, Cohen even provided his passport to Buzzfeed in May 2017, which appeared to confirm his account.

This was critical at the time. If Cohen had never been to Prague, then he certainly could not have been there talking to Russian intelligence officials mopping up the fallout from the Wikileaks publication of the DNC emails, as Steele alleged.

What is clear is that the collusion allegations following directly on the heels of the hacking allegations helped shape public attitudes about both. Such that if you doubted collusion, you were more likely to doubt the hacking allegations, particularly when there was a compelling alternative explanation that had been heavily promoted by trusted sources. That is not to suggest that makes those attitudes fully accurate, since one thing could be true without the other.

Russia could have in fact hacked the DNC and Podesta emails, and put them on Wikileaks, but the Trump campaign might not have had a thing to do with the planning, the hack or the publication. One item always curious about the Steele dossier was that it exhibited no apparent foreknowledge of the hack. Everything was after the fact. And then within days, in July 2016, he had cracked the case. Russia did it, and Trump helped.

We still do not know what the redacted portions of the FISA application state, or what other evidence Mueller might be sitting on. But it is hard to believe that the Trump presidency has been allowed to come this far if Steele’s central allegation of Trump campaign coordination and “full knowledge” of the DNC hack by Russia and the Wikileaks publication had been proven.

Again, Mueller only brought charges on the hack against Russian intelligence officers, and as Comey urged the American people in Jan. 2017, the charges of Trump collusion on the hack were “unverified.”

What the American people need to begin wrapping their heads around is the idea that despite the hack being Russian in origin, in 2016, that was not enough for the DNC and the Clinton campaign. They had to politicize it. They had pin it on Trump. Perhaps to equal out the FBI’s own investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server that contained classified information. Whatever the motive, via the Steele dossier, it was indeed politicized, and by Oct. 2016, the FBI was running with it.

Along the way, we have learned of charges of bias by FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok and his colleagues, who appeared determined to stop Trump from getting elected, and then afterward, to make sure he got impeached.

The bottom line is the Russian election meddling via the hack and the unproven charge of Trump campaign collusion are not the same thing. They need to be separated, and if the Justice Department still cannot prove the central charge, it’s time for Mueller to wrap this thing up, for all of our sakes.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of his articles at





Far left wannabe puppeteers and fraudsters are making wild proclamations that the meddling in U.S. elections by Russians are actually “acts of war.” They equate interfering with American elections with the bombing of U.S. soil. These statements are beyond intellectually dishonest; they are potentially dangerous.

The Cold War has been over for more than three decades. Since then, Russia has not been an enemy of America, but more of an ally – although the U.S. certainly has some important divergent views from Russia. The far left politicos, along with their mainstream media propagandists, Hollywood boneheads, and so-called academic elites, however, are making a rallying cry for the American electorate to not only define Russia as an enemy, but to consider that this other powerful nation is at war with the United States. Where could that lead?

The intelligent, genuine American thinkers need to stand up and ensure that this brewing manufactured anti-Russian craze leads nowhere. And that elected officials, media and others of influence have honest dialogue with the U.S. populous.

This honest dialogue includes the following:

No doubt, Russians attempted to influence the 2016 presidential election – and numerous American elections every year for well over a century. Russians have also attempted to influence scores of elections in dozens of other countries. The Russian meddling has, certainly, included the involvement of government operatives.

Numerous other nations across the globe have similarly attempted to interfere with American elections, since the country declared its Independence in 1776.

And guess what: Americans – including members of her government – en masse have attempted to influence elections in an inordinate number of nations spanning the earth.

There is no such thing as the “crime” of “collusion.” As recently stated in another Empire State News article:

“Mueller, Rosenstein, and the entire special counsel team know that there is nothing unlawful in Americans and Russians joining together in trying to influence the outcome of a U.S. election – unless, in such colluding activity, they conspire to commit crimes. This is the direct reason why no Americans – or Russians for that matter – have been indicted for simply trying to ‘meddle with’ or ‘influence’ the 2016 presidential election. The Russians just indicted, as well as the previous lot, were indicted for allegedly committing crimes (i.e. – computer hacking, identity theft, bank fraud) during their meddling.”

There is a massive frightening slippery slope that will occur if the far left is taken seriously in its purposely false narrative that Russians interfering in U.S. elections (when no actual crime has occurred via their influence) in and of itself constitutes a crime. Kindly evaluate the below circumstances, wherein NONE of the following constitutes a crime:

Barack Obama makes public comments that are favorable to a candidate running for office in Israel and are unfavorable to an opposing candidate (e.g. – Benjamin Netanyahu). Obviously, there, Obama is trying to influence that election. As ill-advised as Obama’s commentary was, he not only has not committed any crime, but he was acting on his constitutional right to free speech.

An endless number of American elected officials (senators, congressmen, etc) have issued public statements – orally, written and via social media – supporting or disavowing candidates for office in foreign nations. They are unequivocally attempting to meddle with, interfere with, and influence those elections. And their conduct is absolutely legal.

An endless number of elected officials from nations considered American allies (e.g. – Great Britain, Canada, France, etc) have similarly issued public statements – orally, written and via social media – supporting or disavowing candidates for office in other nations (including the U.S.). Again, this conduct is perfectly lawful.

An endless number of elected officials from nations considered American enemies have similarly issued public statements – orally, written and via social media – supporting or disavowing candidates for office in other nations (including the U.S.). Again, this conduct is perfectly lawful.

A British or Russian or Kenyan or Peruvian or Canadian citizen gets a Green card and resides in the U.S. While eating at hot dog stand, he or she issues public statements – orally, written and via social media – supporting or disavowing candidates for office in the U.S. Again, this conduct is completely legal.

A British or Russian or Kenyan or Peruvian or Canadian citizen visits the U.S. for a vacation. While kicking it back on a beach in Miami, he or she issues public statements – orally, written and via social media – supporting or disavowing candidates for office in the U.S. Again, this conduct is 100% lawful.

People – whether they are American citizens or not, and whether they are on American soil or not – can say whatever they want in an effort to “influence”, “meddle with”, or “interfere with” an election, regardless of where that election takes place. And they can “collude” with others – regardless if the “others” are Americans, Russians, British, Kenyans, Canadians, Peruvian, etc – to “influence”, “meddle with”, or “interfere with” an election (in America or anywhere). These people are acting in the “American way” and in concert with the United States Constitution—they are embodying the First Amendments’s holy deliverance of free speech rights. They are indeed acting completely and totally lawfully.

But what they can NOT do – and what is illegal – is if while attempting to “influence”, “meddle with”, or “interfere with” an election, they collude to commit a crime (e.g. – bank fraud, identity theft, computer tampering). In that case, they are acting unlawfully.

The far left propagandists are desperately trying to “influence”, “meddle with”, and “interfere with” the minds of Americans. They are trying to create legal definitions out of words and phrases like “influence”, “meddle with”, or “interfere with”; there is no illegality in these words. In the context of elections, these words simply mean that people are trying to change, sway, and even manipulate people’s minds (via oral, written, social media, etc statements). All of this circular manipulation, influencing, meddling et al is lawful, and it’s something people from every nation have to deal with in every facet of their lives. It is not something that can or should be criminalized, as the perilous free speech slippery slope is one too deep and frightening to consider.

That said, Americans surely must be mindful of the propagandists – whether they are Russians, British, Kenyans, Peruvians, Canadians or persons/operatives from any nation in the world, including the home grown sort. And, without question, Americans should be desirous of criminal prosecution for those who attempt to “influence”, “meddle with”, or “interfere with” an election – when they actually collude to commit a crime in furtherance of their meddling-type activities.

But Americans should also not be fooled into thinking that any of this influencing and interfering (whether lawful or unlawful) has actually resulted in affecting the outcomes of any of our elections. For, are we really that stupid that some Facebook posts and Twitter rants and/or any type of advertising materials propagated by Russians, Peruvians, or Kenyans has manipulated our minds? Come on!

The far left propagandist, fear-mongers need to re-review the very recent firm words of their cape-draped superhero:

In October, 2016, then-president Barack Obama declared, “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections. There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.”

The U.S. democracy is not coming to an end because of foreign influence peddlers. Although their interference is problematic (and even unlawful in the times when colluding to commit a crime is involved), it is a far cry from an act of war where bombs are dropped. But that “act of war” battle cry by the far left propagandists well, that’s problematic in its own right. It presents yet another level of manipulation that Americans have to deal with; and although this is indeed dangerous, U.S. citizens are smart enough to overcome it.

Kenneth Del Vecchio, ESN publisher and editor-in-chief, is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and Thomson Reuters-ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/entertainment attorney for 24 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases.  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and E-1 Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies, as well. A best-selling political thriller novelist, he penned his first published novel at only 24-years-old. Additionally, Mr. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other major media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.”  A regular legal and political  analyst on the major news networks such, Mr. Del Vecchio formerly served as the publisher and editorial page editor for a New Jersey daily newspaper. 





Looking to make a life change and rent in a new location? You might want to strongly consider Arizona, according to WalletHub. The popular financial-advice site has released its annual list of best and worst cities for renters, and six out of the top ten cities are in Arizona.

The rankings are based on comparisons of “more than 180 U.S. cities based on 22 key indicators of rental attractiveness and quality of life,” according to Diana Polk, WalletHub Communications Manager. These indicators fall within two main dimensions, rental market and affordability and quality of life. Within the rental market and affordability dimension are factors such as average home square footage, historical rental-price changes, and cost of living. Within the quality of life dimension are factors such as job market, driver friendliness, and recreation friendliness.

WalletHub notes that approximately 43 million Americans are currently renting, while rental prices have consistently risen, increasing 2.8% in 2017. So where should you look for that perfect combination of affordability and quality of life? Here are the top ten cities, according to the report:

Best Cities for Renters

  1. Scottsdale, AZ
  2. Peoria, AZ
  3. Chandler, AZ
  4. Gilbert, AZ
  5. Fargo, ND
  6. Bismarck, ND
  7. Overland Park, KS
  8. Lincoln, NE
  9. Mesa, AZ
  10. Tempe, AZ

And which cities to avoid? Here are the bottom ten from the list:

  1. Jackson, MS
  2. Hialeah, FL
  3. Providence, RI
  4. Baltimore, MD
  5. Bridgeport, CT
  6. Huntington, WV
  7. New Haven, CT
  8. Cleveland, OH
  9. Memphis, TN
  10. Detroit, MI

The full list can be found at

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles.





So apparently the Baby Trump balloon is making its way to New Jersey. A group of New Jersey activists have raised money, via a GoFundMe campaign,  to construct a similar balloon to that which was seen in London during the President’s recent visit. The group’s lofty (no pun intended) goal is to fly it when President Trump visits his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey next month.

According to their GoFundMe page, the group initially sought $4,500, which they raised in less than a day. Baby Trump balloon supporters donated approximately $24,000 before the campaign stopped accepting donations.

Group leaders are now proudly touting the fact that they have enough money to construct not one, but four, Baby Trump balloons. These activists, who maintain a schedule of daily protests throughout New Jersey,  have grandiose plans of bringing balloons to Trump’s other golf courses in New Jersey and for loaning them out to other protesters across the country.

“Given your generous response we will be purchasing more than one Baby so we can go coast-to-coast, border-to-border,” they proclaimed on their GoFundMe page. “Our goal is to make Baby Trump available to various locations around the country.”

Hold the balloon strings just a minute here…hypocrisy is soaring,  along with the usual stupidity that is expected from these groups. All of these anti-Trumpers are spending their hard-earned (that is, assuming they have actual jobs, since they do spend every day protesting) money on BALLOONS?! Wouldn’t their money be better spent on the causes they claim to care so much about? What about the reasons they are purportedly protesting in the first place? What about the immigrant children, whose cause they are supposedly supporting through their protests? Surely there are charitable organizations, immigration advocates,  and others who could use this money. How about sending it to humanitarian organizations that assist in the impoverished countries from which the immigrants come?  But no, $24,000 is going toward balloons.

There’s a difference between claiming that you care and actually caring.





The press and former CIA Director John Brennan are expressing hysterics over a press conference where President Trump disappointed them by not showering outright insults on the Russian President. The reporters moved past what may be the most significant development of Mr. Trump’s very busy trip to Europe, what they read at the time as an insult to Germany.

Last Wednesday at the NATO summit, President Trump spoke against the proposed expansion of the natural gas pipeline from Russia directly to Germany via the Baltic Sea. The Nord Stream 2 project has nearly completed permitting and is set to begin laying pipe later this year. It will run parallel an existing nearly 800-mile undersea pipeline and double the capacity of Russia to move gas directly to Germany.

About a third of Europe’s natural gas is currently supplied by Russia. The new pipeline would allow Russia to expand its dominant position as an energy supplier to Europe and give it flexibility to bypass an onshore pipeline that passes through Ukraine, Slovakia, and Czech Republic to Germany. That would deprive these countries of transit fees, but more significantly it would allow Russia greater control of their energy supplies.

Concern over increased German dependence on Russian gas supplies is less immediate than the worry that Russia will again use energy as a weapon to control the nations it believes should still be its satellites. Russia and Ukraine have been in conflict since 2014, and Russia has previously cut off energy supplies, at times in the dead of winter, as a political weapon. An expanded pipeline directly to Germany will allow Russia greater ability to flex its strength against near neighbors while maintaining lucrative sales to Western Europe.

U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is much more about world peace and national security than any chance to sell liquified natural gas (LNG) into the Europe’s market. American LNG is better positioned for sale into more lucrative Pacific markets, although it could shore up energy requirements in Europe.

Germany has aggressively cut its reliance on coal aiming at their 2030 carbon emissions target under the Paris Climate Agreement. After the 2011 accident at the Japanese Fukushima nuclear facility, they also moved to curb nuclear energy production. Both policies have increased German dependence on natural gas and have not been enough to please environmentalists.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has acknowledged the political significance of the pipeline project. Her predecessor, Gerhard Schroder, is making his personal fortune off of the project which he approved just prior to leaving office. He quickly moved on to lead the project implementation and then into board positions in several Russian government-controlled energy consortiums. Now Schroeder is the chairman of Rosneft, the largest Russian oil company, also controlled by the government.

German Defense Minister, Ursula von Derek Leyen, responded to Mr. Trump’s comments at NATO saying, “We have an independent energy supply; we are an independent country. We are just diversifying.”

Germany can certainly assert their independence, but they should also recognize that nations are interdependent, and they could see drastic consequences of Russia’s greater power over former satellites. Far from insulting Germany, Mr. Trump was warning them and NATO that their “independent” decisions that could give Russia another geopolitical weapon.

Sheryl Kaufman is a guest contributor and former Corporate Economist and Congressional Staff Member.

 You can read more of her articles at 





Ever since President Trump’s July 16 summit and press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the Democrats (and some establishment Republicans) have been nothing short of hysterical in their cries of treason, betrayal, and doom for America. As they scream and lament that America is headed toward destruction simply because Trump displayed levelheadedness and rational reasoning in his comments at the press conference, they are overlooking the fact that he has asked a very logical question: WHERE are the allegedly hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers?

According to the DNC’s lawsuit against President Trump, Russia, Wikileaks, Jared Kushner, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and many others, the DNC’s IT staff discovered that its servers were hacked on April 28, 2016. It then hired a cybersecurity firm called CrowdStrike Services, Inc. to “investigate the attack, assess the damage done to the DNC’s computers and servers, and assist the DNC in its remediation efforts.” The complaint goes on to state that “As a result of the persistence of the Russian state-sponsored infiltration, in order to remove the unauthorized users from its network, the DNC was required to decommission more than 140 servers, remove and reinstall all software, including the operating systems, for more than 180 computers, and rebuild at least 11 servers.”

Interestingly, the complaint does not state that the servers were turned over to the FBI? Why? Because they were not turned over to the FBI. Former FBI Director James Comey testified to this at his hearing on January 10, 2017. He said that the FBI made “multiple requests at different levels” to gain access to the servers, but they settled for merely receiving information from CyberStrike: “Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw…our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that’s involved, so it’s the best evidence.” CyberStrike provided the FBI with images of the server and reports of their analysis, but not the actual servers.

These facts are getting lost, or purposely ignored, in this latest anti-Trump hysteria. If this was truly a matter of national security, why would the FBI settle for mere reports and images from a third party? Why did the FBI draw conclusions about Russian hacking without firsthand knowledge of the alleged evidence from the servers? Where are the “decommissioned servers”? What about the “rebuilt” servers? Was key evidence lost and/or destroyed when these servers were “rebuilt”? Why have mainstream media, Democrats, and establishment Republicans unquestioningly grasped onto the FBI’s assertions of Russian hacking, given the absence of a clear chain of custody of the servers and a mere pile of second-hand evidence? Is something being covered up? Is there evidence that perhaps, gasp, Russians were not the only ones hacking?

Mainstream media, liberal Democrats, and even some Republicans have become completely unhinged since the Helsinki summit and press conference. Epitomized by CNN’s Chris Cuomo’s statement that July 16, 2018 would “live in infamy,” the baseless frenzy and panic has apparently obscured these anti-Trumpers’ ability to think clearly, ask questions, and demand evidence, as productive, competent American citizens should do about all issues. Their screaming is so loud, they apparently do not hear the voice of reason.

And that voice belongs to President Donald Trump, who rightly is asking crucial questions: Where are the servers? What’s being hidden?

Temple Li is the news editor for Empire State News, where she frequently authors her own editorials (just because she feels like it). She graduated at the top of her class at a mediocre college, infuriating her professors with her conservative wit and sultry charm. Empire State News allows Ms. Li to make a living, and to have a platform to tell people what she thinks. What could be better than that?





Baseball is the “American Pastime”, with tens of millions of American kids (of all races) playing it. Tonight, in the MLB All-Star game, when the starting lineups and managers where announced (20 people), each was accompanied by a kid—this was in front of a sold out crowd and on national TV.

ALL of the kids accompanying the all-stars were black.

77% of America is white (62% non-Hispanic white; 15% Hispanic white), and 12.5% is black; 10.5% are other racial backgrounds.

MLB very obviously and very purposefully decided to leave out representation of almost 90% of American children.

I wonder how that obvious display made children feel all across the country?

I wonder what this type of practice does for race relations in America?

I wonder why ANYBODY in 2018 decides to purposely discriminate against ANYONE of ANY RACE?





Last night on the i24 News show Stateside, a former Barack Obama campaign operative, Robin Biro, leveled a particularly weak cheap shot at fellow legal/political analyst Kenneth Del Vecchio, questioning his “patriotism.” The comment was flipped during a heated debate over whether President Trump should cancel his meeting with Russia Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in response to the special counsel  indictments of a dozen Russian government officials.

The indictment alleges that these Russian nationals illegally hacked DNC computers in America, during the 2016 presidential election. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated at a press conference, however, that the indictment does not include the involvement of any American citizens, and there is no indication that this alleged hacking had any affect on the 2016 presidential election results.

Del Vecchio – a former judge and prosecutor, attorney who has tried hundreds of cases, and author of the nation’s best-selling criminal law books (published by Thomson Reuters/ALM & Pearson Education/Prentice Hall) – told i24 News anchor David Shuster that people first need to understand that there is nothing illegal in Russians attempting to influence an American election. More so, he advised, there is nothing unlawful in Russians and Americans working together to influence an American election. Del Vecchio has explained, on many shows, that such conduct only becomes illegal when the parties “collude to commit a crime, like bank fraud, identity theft, or computer hacking.”

In cementing his point that pundits, politicians, and the public must distinguish between lawful and unlawful activity (and not be duped by sound bites), Del Vecchio said, “There is nothing illegal about the Russian government itself trying to influence our elections, just like Americans and the American government try to influence other countries’ elections. It’s only illegal if they collude to commit a crime.”

Shuster, an Emmy Award winning journalist who previously was an anchor/correspondent/reporter for MSNBC, Fox News, and ABC respectively, then turned to Biro and asked, “But Robin, to Ken’s point, the United States has tried to meddle in elections for decades. I don’t remember other countries canceling summits with our president as a result.”

Biro, who formerly served as a regional director for the Obama presidential campaign and currently is the Political Director for the Fulton County (Georgia) Democratic Party, acknowledged that “Ken does bring up a good point.” Then he continued, “We need to remember who our adversaries are. Donald Trump does not treat Putin as an adversary. He continuously heaps on praise.” Biro continued hammering this same theme, re-stating it in multiple manners.

In response to this mantra, Del Vecchio praised Biro, saying “I respect, at the highest degree, your service.” Biro, who is a former U.S. Army Ranger, had mentioned his veteran status twice earlier in the show. Del Vecchio then continued, “However, you’re just regurgitating a propagandized, manufactured Democrat talking point. We don’t have any idea that this benefited the Republican party because we don’t know if the Republican party even knew about the hacking.”

Shuster then turned to Del Vecchio and noted that for the past two years, Donald Trump has propounded the idea that several others could be responsible for meddling in U.S. elections, such as “the Chinese” or “a 400-pound guy.” Shuster added, “Now we know that the Russians were trying to meddle. Whether it’s legal or not, would you acknowledge that Donald Trump’s conspiracy theory on this point has been blown apart?”

Del Vecchio responded, “Not at all, and here’s why: because maybe there was a 400-pound guy, and the Chinese, and ten other people from ten other countries who also have been trying to get involved in our elections, in addition to the Russians who allegedly were trying to get involved.”

At this point, Biro began to unravel, sniping, “Ken, I question your patriotism! I question your patriotism, Ken! Right here, I’m calling you out!”

Del Vecchio, who has often been profiled as a modern-day Renaissance Man (in addition to his legal prowess and law book authoring, he is also a best-selling novelist, acclaimed filmmaker of over 30 movies distributed by the likes of Sony Pictures & NBCUniversal, actor who has starred alongside several Oscar and Emmy winners and nominees, chairman of one of the world’s largest film festivals, and a competitive athlete who has won nearly 50 weightlifting competitions in bench pressing 450 pounds), acts much in the manner as the Renaissance Men from long ago: he doesn’t give up when attacked, and fights the battle.

The following fiery colloquy then transpired between Del Vecchio and Biro, after Shuster asked Biro to explain himself:

Biro: Because as I just said, any American should be against cozying up to foreign adversaries who try to disrupt our system of democracy!

Del Vecchio: Who’s cozying up to this?!

Biro: Donald Trump! Right here (holds up page of handwritten notes). Eighty times he praised him!

Del Vecchio: Robin, that was obnoxious, rude, and unfounded to say that you question my patriotism!

Biro: I stand by my word. You would not stand up to this!

Del Vecchio: This is an allegation. Then I question your sense of justice, if you think that a mere allegation, which is all that an indictment is—

Biro: You just said that it could be a 400-pound man!

Del Vecchio: Then you don’t understand the law!

Biro: You said it could very well be a 400-pound man or China!

Del Vecchio: I said that there could be a 400-pound man, China and ten other countries!

In continuing to “call out” Del Vecchio regarding his patriotism, Biro was unable to articulate why Del Vecchio was supposedly unpatriotic via his views that President Trump shouldn’t cancel his meeting with Putin, and that it is important to distinguish between legal and illegal activity. Del Vecchio affirmed that it “stinks” if foreign countries meddle with our election just like if we meddle in theirs, but added that “if a corporation in the United States tries to meddle in our elections, it’s problematic too.”

Del Vecchio again reiterated his grave concern that people are misinterpreting the entire issue, cautioning Biro, “You’re using these words like ‘meddle’ and ‘interfere’ and ‘influence’ as if they have some legal connotation. It’s only if they’re colluding to commit a crime that it’s unlawful.”

This point explicated by Del Vecchio, who is also the publisher and editor-in-chief of Empire State News, is paramount in understanding the current special counsel investigation, as well as the far left’s spin of it and the mainstream media’s handling of the same. Robert Mueller, one of the most experienced criminal lawyers in the nation, of course is well aware of the accuracy of Del Vecchio’s words. Mueller, Rosenstein, and the entire special counsel team know that there is nothing unlawful in Americans and Russians joining together in trying to influence the outcome of a U.S. election – unless, in such colluding activity, they conspire to commit crimes. This is the direct reason why no Americans – or Russians for that matter – have been indicted for simply trying to “meddle with” or “influence” the 2016 presidential election. The Russians just indicted, as well as the previous lot, were indicted for allegedly committing crimes (i.e. – computer hacking, identity theft, bank fraud) during their meddling.

As Del Vecchio said in an earlier part of last night’s Stateside, “Now, here, we have no evidence whatsoever that there was any nexus or connection between what the Russian government did in allegedly hacking these computers and anybody in the United States. In fact, Rod Rosenstein said such.”

If only Robin Biro could wrap his head around this, and understand the true meaning of patriotism…

Temple Li is the news editor for Empire State News, where she frequently authors her own editorials (just because she feels like it). She graduated at the top of her class at a mediocre college, infuriating her professors with her conservative wit and sultry charm. Empire State News allows Ms. Li to make a living, and to have a platform to tell people what she thinks. What could be better than that?





So President Trump has levied some criticism at NATO. Guess what?

President Barack Hussein Obama criticized NATO in nearly an identical fashion. And so did President George W. Bush. Both of these two most recent past presidents expressed distaste for NATO countries’ failures in meeting their financial obligations.

Like President Trump, his predecessor commanders-in-chief publicly stated their unhappiness with the U.S. carrying the great part of the NATO economic freight. Each NATO nation is supposed to spend two percent of its annual gross domestic product on defense.

At NATO summits in both 2006 and 2008 President Bush exerted pressure on U.S. NATO allies to increase their funding; this was at a time when America (and other NATO nations) were at a pinnacle point in the Afghanistan War. At the 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, President Bush ripped into NATO partners in saying, “”At this summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defense investments to support both NATO and EU operations. America believes if Europeans invest in their own defense, they will also be stronger and more capable when we deploy together.”

President Obama sniped at NATO members in Brussels right after Russia annexed Crimea. “”If we’ve got collective defense, it means that everybody’s got to chip in, and I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending among some of our partners in NATO. Not all, but many,” the then-U.S. president told the world in 2014.

The mainstream media, far left pundits, and near entirety of the Democrats in Congress conveniently have forgotten the public displeasures expressed by both Presidents Obama and Bush. More realistically, these propagandists are purely and intentionally fabricating into the constituencies of both America and the international community. Why, one would ask?

Simply because they hate Donald Trump at such an unprecedented level that will criticize him for anything he does. Worse is this: they consistently lie. And lie. And lie.

And now, practically all of the mainstream media, far left pundits, and near entirety of the Democrats in Congress have no credibility with the majority of Americans and a sizable portion of international observers.

Bravo, buffoons…Bravo.

Jimmy The Saint is the former publisher of Empire State News, who now writes editorials for the publication, while he hunts, sings, and seeks the admiration of hot women from across the globe.





FBI Agent Peter Strozk, now infamous for his blatant anti-Trump bias and terrible judgment in both personal and professional matters, testified Thursday at a hearing before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees. All of his follies were brought to the forefront, as he was questioned for hours about his obvious anti-Trump bias in text messages that he sent to his lover, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

Strozk was a high-ranking FBI member and participated in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, as well as the Mueller investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 elections. Strozk and Page exchanged approximately 50,000 text messages between 2016 and 2017, thoughtlessly expressing in writing their opinions of Donald Trump. Among the highlights of stupidity are a text from Page where she asked if Trump is “not ever going to become president, right?” to which Strzok replied “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” Strozk called Trump an “idiot”, a “loathsome human,” and a “douche” and also insulted other Republican presidential candidates, Republican voters, Congress, and Americans in general. He also referred to an “investigation leading to impeachment” and an “insurance policy” against a Trump victory.

At the hearing, Strozk found himself skewered by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). The hearing was marked by outbursts and fiery remarks all around, including a crazy blustering shout of “You need your medication!” from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-New Jersey), directed at Gohmert. Coleman blurted this out following Gohmert’s verbal spanking of Strozk for his foolishness in both his career and his family with these words: “I’ve talked to FBI agents around the country. You’ve embarrassed them; you’ve embarrassed yourself. And I can’t help but wonder, when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eye and lie to her about Lisa Page?”

Strozk attempted to claim objectivity and the ability to separate his personal feelings toward Trump from his work in the Mueller investigation with the statement, “At no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took.” But Gowdy was not having any of Strzok’s disingenuousness. He saw right through it and stated, “The moment special counsel Bob Mueller found out about Peter Strzok’s text and emails he kicked him off of the investigation. But that was a year and a half too late. The text and emails may have been discovered in May of 2017, but the bias existed and was manifest a year and a half before that. All the way back to late 2015 and early 2016. So it wasn’t the discovery of texts that got him fired, it was the bias manifest in those texts that made him unfit to objectively and dispassionately investigate.”

It is clear that Strzok has a deep and ongoing animus against President Trump, and it is not at all believable that it would not affect his daily work at the FBI. His text-venting to Page exemplifies this. More troubling is that Strzok’s bias is symptomatic of core problems that occurred at the onset of the special counsel investigation, given that his politically-motivated efforts laid the groundwork for it.

Be careful who you call an idiot, Peter Strzok; you never know when you will look like one in front of the entire country.

Temple Li is the news editor for Empire State News, where she frequently authors her own editorials (just because she feels like it). She graduated at the top of her class at a mediocre college, infuriating her professors with her conservative wit and sultry charm. Empire State News allows Ms. Li to make a living, and to have a platform to tell people what she thinks. What could be better than that?