Department Of Justice Executive Office For Immigration Review Immigration Court Alie: Fill & Download for Free

Original question:All that can be done in trying to answer your question is to go off of what we know and to make an educated guess.Your suggestion that Trump fired Comey void of any ulterior motives is possible but it is not probable.TL;DR, I do not think that Trump fired Comey regarding Comey breaking the “long standing tradition of not interfering in politics” - Since when has Trump ever cared about “tradition”?I think Trump fired Comey because Trump is trying to interfere and/or end the investigation into Russia.To be completely honest, Trump has shown time and time again that he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. It is foolish in my opinion to give it to him.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<I. So far, Trump has fired the following significant people:Sally Yates was fired on January 30th, 2017.Preet Bharara was fired on March 10th, 2017.James Comey was fired on May 9th, 2017.All three of the people listed above (Bharara, Yates and Comey) were some of the most powerful people that would have been the best watch dogs for potential corruption in the White House.Events that led up to the firing of Yates:Sally Yates - Acting Attorney GeneralYates was fired after she refused to enforce Trump’s travel ban (that the courts later found unconstitutional) and instructed the DOJ to do the same.Here is Yates’s statement regarding the travel ban:Acting attorney general orders DOJ not to defend Trump's travel banTrump’s administration said that Yates:“betrayed” TrumpIs “weak” on bordersIs “weak” on immigrationHere is the statement from the White House, firing Yates:Donald Trump firing Sally Yates isn’t the big story. How he did it is.Yates was fired four days after warning the White House about Flynn (when she refused to enforce Trump’s travel ban)18 days after Yates warned the White House, Flynn resigned (pushed by Trump) - after an article, written by the Washington Post, said Flynn had lied about what he discussed with KislyakEvents leading up to the firing of Bharara:Preet Bharara - U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New YorkTrump had told Bharara that his job was safe during a meeting a Trump tower[November 30th, 2016]Trump opts to keep Preet Bharara as U.S. attorney for ManhattanBharara got numerous calls from Trump after Trump’s inauguration, which made him uncomfortable because Bharara felt that Trump was trying to cultivate a relationship with him22 hours after one of the calls from Trump, Bharara was firedBharara Said Calls from Trump Made Him Feel UncomfortableBharara was investigating the following when Trump fired him:Tom Price, a member of Trump’s cabinet (head of the Department of Health and Human Services) for his stock tradesFired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara Said to Have Been Investigating HHS Secretary Tom PriceFox News for failing to disclose settlements to shareholders that were made to female employees who had accused Roger Ailes (a political advisor for Trump) of sexual harassmentU.S. Attorney Preet Bharara Says He Was Fired After Refusing to QuitTrump’s wiretapping accusations where him claimed that Obama had wiretapped himDonald Trump has now fired three of the people investigating himDeutsche Bank (a German bank that has loaned Trump at least $300 million) and its possible Russian money launderingTrump’s Personal Lawyer Boasted That He Got Preet Bharara FiredEvents leading up to Comey’s firing:James Comey - FBI DirectorTrump fired Comey in the midst of FBI investigations into Russia, which make the reactions that are blaming Trump for possibly trying to influence the investigations into Russia rationalHours before Comey was fired [on May 9th, 2017], Federal prosecutors had issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of Flynn (former National Security Advisor), seeking business recordsThese subpoenas were signs that the FBI is taking legal actions regarding the probe into RussiaA day before Comey was fired, Yates, former acting Attorney General, told a Senate panel that she had warned the White House on three separate occasions that Flynn might be compromised - the number of times Yates warned the White House was not previously known[Yates’s testimony occurred on May 8th, 2017]Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified along with Yates to the Senate Panel the day before Comey was firedClapper said that Trump and his administration could be helping Russia by continuing to deny and/or obstruct Russia’s involvement>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<II. Those originally involved with Trump’s decision to fire Comey:Trump said he fired Comey based on suggestions from Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general and Jeff Sessions, the attorney general - both wrote Trump letters outlining their thoughts the day before Comey was fired[May 8th, 2017]This is only the second time the Head of the FBI has been firedThis is the first time the Head of the FBI has been fired as an investigation into the White House is happeningExert from Rosenstein’s letter:"cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken."Exert from Sessions’s letter:"It is essential that this Department of Justice clearly reaffirm its commitment to longstanding principles that ensure the integrity and fairness of federal investigations and prosecutions. The Director of the FBI must be someone who follows faithfully the rules and principles of the Department of Justice and who sets the right example for our law enforcement officials and others in the Department,"FBI Director James Comey has been fired>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<III. Sessions’s reason for firing Comey & his involvement in the firing:It is inappropriate that Sessions was involved in firing Comey for the following reasons:Comey is head of the current investigations occurring at the FBI regarding Trump, Trump’s administration and the possible ties/collusion that may have taken place during Trump’s campaignSessions recused himself from investigations into Russia when information came to light regarding his undisclosed meetings with a Russian ambassador[Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation on March 2nd, 2017]Both Session and Rosenstein wrote that the treatment of Clinton and the investigation into her emails was a reason Comey should be fired.The treatment of the Clinton investigation is a absurd reason to cite in firing Comey because:And let's not forget Sessions praise of Comey regarding how he handled his investigation into Clinton:Trump’s letter to Comey in which Comey was fired never referenced the investigation of Clinton:The above termination letter Trump wrote to Comey only specifically mentions the Russia investigations and claims where Trump alleges he is not under investigation, showing Trump’s mind was clearly on Russia when he fired ComeyTrump sent a trusted security guard to hand deliver a termination letter to Comey…who wasn’t there.Comey learned of his firing by seeing it on T.V. in L.A., as he was speaking at a FBI recruiting event>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<IV. Leaks from the White House regarding Comey:Top aides at the White House said Trump was getting more and more enraged about the Russia probe“He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe”Another White House top advisor told Politico that Comey’s firing shocked them as well, “"Nobody really knew. Our phones all buzzed and people said, What?"Behind Comey’s firing: An enraged Trump, fuming about RussiaOther leaks from the White House have said the Trump and Sessions pressured the FBI to prioritize leaks of classified information over the probe into RussiaBehind the scenes of James Comey's epic firing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<V. Why Trump’s firing of Comey is questionable:According to Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent who led the U.S.S. Cole investigation, this is why:“An FBI director can kill any investigation. It does not look good when the White House fires an FBI director who is investigating the White House. It is a tenured job to insulate the director from politics.”Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<VI. Known people that are/were under investigation by the FBI that are/were in Trump’s inner circle regarding his campaign and/or presidency:Michael Flynn:former national security advisor to Trumpdid not properly disclose payments from Russiatalked to a Russian Ambassador about sanctions Obama placed on Russia[Flynn started to be investigated for his work as a foreign agent on November 30th, 2016. Flynn officially told the Trump administration that he was under federal investigation on January 4th, 2017. Trump did not ask Flynn to resign until February 13th, 2017.]Michael Flynn Resigns as National Security AdviserTrump Team Knew Flynn Was Under Investigation Before He Came to White HousePaul Manafort:Trump's former campaign chairmanManafort has been tied to foreign dictators and oligarchs for decadesPreviously worked for Viktor Yanukovych (pro-Russian former prime minister of Ukraine who is responsible for murdering his people in the streets after going back on a promise to join the EU)Manafort is also being investigated for his work to push Russian interests in the U.S. “for years”There are ledgers from an anti-corruption center in Kiev that show undisclosed payments to Manafort from Yanukovych's pro-Russia Party from 2007–2012A Putin alley, Oleg Deripaska, paid Manafort $10 million from 2006–2009 to lobby on behalf of RussiaDeripaska sued Manafort for “disappearing” with $19 million that was intended to be used as investments in 2014Lawyers from Ukraine have been trying to get Manafort to provide information on his role regarding protesters in Ukraine being killed by police and have gotten no responsePaul Manafort is now at the center of the Trump-Russia investigation — here's what you need to know about himHacked text messages allegedly sent by Paul Manafort's daughter discuss 'blood money' and killings, and a Ukrainian lawyer wants him to explainManafort is currently being investigated by the FBI for his ties to Russia as well as intercepted phone calls between Manafort and Russians who are under surveillanceIntercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates[The investigations into Manafort’s ties to Russia began in August of 2016; he resigned on August 19th, 2016 as Trump’s campaign manager shortly after this information came to light]The definitive Trump-Russia timeline of eventsWhat we know about U.S. investigations into Russia and possible ties to Trump's campaignRoger Stone:tweeted about Wikileaks and Hillary before the next release of emails would happentold NBC News in October he had "back channel communications" with the DNC hackers. Also tweeted about a DNC hackerIn fact, Stone also talked with a Russian hacker over private twitter messagesRoger Stone Admits Contact-with Guccifer 2.0 During CampaignStone’s alleged communications with Guccifer and Julian Assange (WikiLeaks Founder) is currently being investigated by the FBI[News that Stone was being investigated by the FBI regarding Russia was first reported on March 21st, 2017]Roger Stone, the ‘Trickster’ on Trump’s Side, Is Under F.B.I. ScrutinyMeet Roger Stone: One of Donald Trump's most loyal supporters who is now being investigated by FBICarter Page:Former foreign policy adviserhad business connections to Russia.The FBI received a FISA warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the summer of 2016 to surveil Page:“The government’s application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy declaration that laid out investigators’ basis for believing that Page was an agent of the Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Moscow.”The context in which FISA warrants are issued:In Christopher Steele’s infamous dossier, he alleged that Page meet with an alley of Putin in July of 2016:According to a so-called “dirty dossier” a former MI5 official compiled into Trump’s connections with Russia, Page allegedly met with Igor Sechin, chief executive of Rosneft and a close ally of Putin’s, in July 2016. The Washington Post suggests that this meeting, if it happened, might have interested the FBI, not least because Sechin is subject to U.S. sanctions.What to know about Carter Page, the former Trump adviser under FBI surveillance for months[The exact start of the FBI investigation into Page is hard to pin point, but an estimate would be when the date that the FISA warrant for surveilling Page was issued - which happened in the summer of 2016]Jared Kushner:Kushner’s meeting with Sergey Gorkov (CEO of Russia's state-owned Vnesheconombank) is allegedly being investigated by Mueller and his teamApparently, Gorkov offered Kushner financing from Russian banks if the sanctions against Russia were liftedThere's a theme emerging in Mueller's Russia probe that could prove damning for TrumpKushner’s meeting with Gorkov happened right after his meeting with Sergey Kislyak, ambassador to RussiaKushner allegedly sought creating a “backchannel” so that Trump’s transition team could communicate with Russia'This is serious': Jared Kushner reportedly tried to set up a secret Trump-Russia back channelKislyak allegedly set up the meeting with Kushner and GorkovSenate Committee to Question Jared Kushner Over Meetings With Russians[The investigation into Kushner was originally reported on May 25th, 2017]Donald Trump:Robert Mueller, the special counsel named by the Justice Department to investigate the Russia matter, is now examining whether Trump or others sought to obstruct the probe, a person familiar with Mueller's inquiry said on Thursday.[The investigation into Trump was first reported on June 14th, 2017]Trump acknowledges he is under investigation in Russia probeVII. Chart that shows known connections between Trump’s team and Russia (this does not depict investigations or illegal actions, just ties):Trump campaign’s Russia ties: Who’s involved>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<VIII. Update #1:[First reported on May 10th, 2017, day after Comey was fired {May 9th, 2017}]The New York Times reported that Comey asked the DOJ for more resources a couple of days before being fired:Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in resources for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to four congressional officials, including Senator Richard J. Durbin.Mr. Comey made his appeal to Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who also wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of Mr. Comey this week, the officials said.“I’m told that as soon as Rosenstein arrived, there was a request for additional resources for the investigation and that a few days afterwards, he was sacked,” said Mr. Durbin, a Democrat of Illinois. “I think the Comey operation was breathing down the neck of the Trump campaign and their operatives, and this was an effort to slow down the investigation.”Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<IX. Update #2:[First reported on May 10th, 2017]According to the New York Times, Roger Stone is said to have been an influencer in Trump’s decision to fire Comey.Why is that relevant? Because Stone is under investigation by the FBI regarding the Russia probe:Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime informal adviser to Mr. Trump who has been under F.B.I. scrutiny as part of the Russia inquiry, was among those who urged the president to fire Mr. Comey, people briefed on the discussions said.Mr. Trump denied on Twitter on Wednesday morning that he had spoken to Mr. Stone about the F.B.I. director, and Mr. Stone declined to describe his interactions with the president in an interview.But two longtime Trump associates with knowledge of the matter said the two had recently discussed their dissatisfaction with Mr. Comey and his inquiry.Whatever the specifics, Mr. Stone ultimately reflected the president’s view of Mr. Comey. As Mr. Stone put it shortly after the dismissal became public on Tuesday, “There was a sense in the White House, I believe, that enough was enough when it came to this guy.”‘Enough Was Enough’: How Festering Anger at Comey Ended in His Firing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<X. Update #3:[Letter was written on May 10th, 2017]Comey wrote a farewell letter to his FBI colleagues:READ: James Comey's farewell letter to friends and agents>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XI. Update #4:[Allegations that Rosenstein threatened to resign were first reported on May 11th, 2017]First reported by The Washington Post, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein threatened to resign after being thrown under the bus by Trump regarding the firing of Comey:Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote a three-page memorandum detailing the reasons behind his recommendation for Comey's dismissal on Monday, was painted as the main arbiter of the decision.Trump had asserted that he acted based on Rosenstein's and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recommendations.Trump's deputy attorney general reportedly threatened to resign after being painted as the mastermind behind Comey's firingInside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XII. Update #5:[McCabe’s testimony took place on May 11th, 2017]Acting FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee and said the following according to the New York Times:Mr. McCabe rejected the White House’s assertion that Mr. Comey had lost the backing of rank-and-file F.B.I. agents, a pointed rebuke of what had been one of the president’s main defenses for the move…Mr. McCabe also said that the Justice Department’s investigation into whether any Trump associates colluded with Russia in the presidential election was “highly significant,” another direct contradiction of the White House.A day earlier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, trying to parry accusations that Mr. Comey’s firing was related to the Russia inquiry, called it “probably one of the smallest things that they’ve got going on their plate” at the F.B.I.Latest Developments on Comey: Acting F.B.I. Chief Contradicts White House>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XIII. Update #6:[These reasons from the White House were given from the day Comey was fired until Trump had has interview with Lester Holt: May 9th - May 11th]So far, here is a list of reasons the White House has given for firing Comey:Comey’s handling of the investigation into Clinton’s emailsComey had “lost the public’s trust”Comey had lost the confidence of those working at the FBITrump took the advice of Deputy Attorney General RosensteinComey was a “showboater” & a “grandstander”Leaks continued coming out of the FBIComey had to correct his statements regarding Huma Abedin and how her emails were synced onto her husband’s computerThe FBI is in chaos>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XIV. Update #7:[Interview with Lester Holt took place on May 11th, 2017]Lester Holt interviews Trump, Trump contradicts his administration:President Trump on Thursday said he was thinking of “this Russia thing with Trump” when he decided to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, who had been leading the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.Recounting his decision to dismiss Comey, Trump told NBC News, “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”Trump’s account flatly contradicts the White House’s initial account of how the president arrived at his decision, undercutting public denials by his aides that the move was influenced in any way by his growing fury with the ongoing Russia probe.Initially, Trump aides had said the president fired Comey simply at the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who wrote a memorandum detailing what he considered to be Comey’s flawed handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.Officials insisted that Trump’s decision was not shaped in any way by his growing fury with the Russia controversy.Trump has publicly called the ongoing probes by the FBI, as well as the Senate and House, “a total hoax” and “a taxpayer charade.”But Trump made clear in Thursday’s interview that Russia indeed was on his mind.…Said Sessions and Rosenstein’s recommendations did not prompt his decision.“I was going to fire Comey,” Trump told Holt. “Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.”Trump Said He Was Thinking of the Russian Controversy When He Decided to Fire Comey>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XV. Update #8:[on May 12th, 2017, Trump suggests he has tapes of conversations he had with Comey]Trump tweeted this, three days after firing Comey:James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017Trump’s intentions in tweeting this seem to stem from efforts to discourage Comey from revealing personal conversations he had with Trump:President Trump suggested on Twitter Friday morning there might be recordings of his private conversations with former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired earlier this week, in an apparent attempt to caution Comey against "leaking to the press."Since this tweet, Trump and the White House have refused to answer whether or not these “tapes” exist:At the White House briefing in the afternoon, press secretary Sean Spicer refused multiple times to confirm or deny whether there is a secret recording device in the Oval Office."I've talked to the president, and the president has nothing further to add on that," Spicer said, adding his oft-used statement that "the tweet speaks for itself."Trump Tweet Suggests His Conversations With Comey Might Have Been Recorded>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XVI. Update #9:[The existence of Comey’s memos were first reported on May 16th, 2017 {a week after Trump fired Comey}, and the New York Times published some of Comey’s memos later that day]Comey’s Memos:Comey had his friend release memos that reflect conversations he had with Trump 3 days after Trump tweeted about having “tapes”.Friend confirms he leaked Comey memo to NYT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XVII. Update #10:[Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel on May 17th, 2017 {the day after the New York Times published some of Comey's memos}]Robert S. Mueller III, former head of the FBI, appointed as special counsel by Rod Rosenstein:The Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officialsThe decision by the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, came after a cascade of damaging developments for Mr. Trump in recent days, including:his abrupt dismissal of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comeythe subsequent disclosure that Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey to drop the investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement that he concluded that “it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter.”As a special counsel, Mr. Mueller can choose whether to consult with or inform the Justice Department about his investigation.He is authorized to investigate:“any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,”as well as other matters that “may arise directly from the investigation.”He is empowered to press criminal charges, and he can request additional resources subject to the review of an assistant attorney general.Mr. Trump was notified only after Mr. Rosenstein signed the order, when the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, walked into the Oval Office around 5:35 p.m. to tell him.Mr. Trump reacted calmly but defiantly, according to two people familiar with the situation, saying he wanted to “fight back.”He quickly summoned his top advisers, most of whom recommended that he adopt a conciliatory stance.But his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who had pushed Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Comey, urged the president to counterattack, according to two senior administration officials.Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XVIII. Update #11:[Reported by the New York Times on May 19th {happened on May 10th, 2017}]Trump tells Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak in the Oval Office that firing Comey means the “pressure is off”:President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives.Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting.Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XIX. Update #12:[Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee after he was fired took place on June 8th, 2017]Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his memos:Comey’s intentions were:to push Trump to release the tapes that Trump threatened may exist (they would collaborate Comey’s memos)to cause a special counsel to be appointed:"I've seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes," Comey said Thursday when discussing a February 14 meeting at the White House…"It never occurred to me before the president's tweet," he said. "I'm not being facetious. I hope there are, and I'll consent to the release of them ... All I can do is hope. The president knows if he taped me, and if he did, my feelings aren't hurt. Release all the tapes. I'm good with it."Comey calls for release of memos, any recordings of White House conversations"I asked a friend of mine to share the content of a memo with the reporter, I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey said.Comey: I Leaked My Memos in Hopes of a Special CounselKey aspects revealed during Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee:1. Believes he was fired because of the Russia probe:“It’s my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey said.“I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted.”During an earlier round of questioning, Comey acknowledged that he did not know for sure but pointed out that he was taking Trump “at his word.”After Comey was fired, Trump’s White House claimed the dismissal was due to his handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, based on the recommendation of top Justice Department officials and needed because the FBI was in disarray.But in an interview with NBC News that week, Trump threw those reasons aside, saying he had the Russia probe in his mind when firing Comey.2. Comey documented conversations he had with Trump because Comey believed Trump would lie about them later on:Comey had served for more than three years as FBI director under President Barack Obama.During that time, he and Obama privately talked twice, but Comey never took notes on those interactions.However, during his brief time leading the FBI during the Trump administration, Comey said he had nine interactions with Trump and began taking detailed notes after their first meeting in January.Comey said his reason was simple: He was worried Trump would lie about their meetings.“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting,” Comey said.3. The White House and Trump ‘defamed’ him:At the opening of the hearing, Comey immediately pushed back against statements by the White House and President Trump suggesting that the he was fired because of poor morale or turmoil at the FBI.Comey said he was “increasingly concerned” about the shifting explanations the White House offered for his firing, but in particular he lashed out at suggestions of the FBI being in a state of chaos.“The administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led,” Comey said. “Those were lies, plain and simple.”During his NBC News interview not long after firing Comey, Trump said that “the FBI has been in turmoil.”“You know that. I know that,” Trump said. “Everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil, less than a year ago. It hasn’t recovered from that.”4. Comey wanted “to get a special counsel appointed”, which is why he worked with a friend to get his memos released:After Comey was fired, news articles began to appear with details of his discussions with Trump, and in some cases the stories cited notes the former FBI director kept of those interactions.On Thursday, Comey admitted he helped arrange at least one of these reports, alluding to a New York Times story published on May 16 discussing Comey’s recollection that Trump asked him to abandon the investigation into Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser.Comey said, in response to questioning, that he was prompted to leak the memo after Trump tweeted on May 12 a suggestion that recordings may exist of their meetings.“As a private citizen, I felt free to share that,” Comey said. “I thought it was very important to get it out.”In an extraordinary admission, Comey said his decision to release the memo was aimed at getting a special prosecutor appointed.5. Comey mentioned Sessions, saying that he didn’t feel comfortable confiding in Sessions as well as alluding to more information about Sessions not yet known:In a cryptic note, Comey mentioned in his prepared statement and his testimony Thursday that the FBI expected Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia-related investigation.This turned out to be correct, as Sessions would later do just that, but Comey would not specifically say why he thought the attorney general would recuse himself.The now-fired FBI director wrote that he decided not to tell Sessions about Trump’s request that he hoped he would let go of the Flynn investigation, because he and the bureau leadership felt “it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations.”When asked about this Thursday by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Comey suggested that there were reasons Sessions could not remain involved in the probe but that those reasons involved classified information.James Comey’s Testimony6. Trump didn’t ask about other FBI investigations, including Russia’s attempts to interfere with the election, which is concerning and shows indifference from Trump:Full text: James Comey testimony transcript on Trump and Russia>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XX. Update #13:[First reported on June 8th, 2017]Deutsche Bank, a bank in Germany that has loaned Trump millions, denied requests from members of Congress to turn over any information regarding its business with Trump:Deutsche Bank AG said it can’t comply with a request to hand over information related to its relationship with Donald Trump and trades from the bank’s Moscow operation as political opponents seek to probe the U.S. President’s links with Russia.Democrats demanded in March that Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the committee, hold a hearing to explore the bank’s conduct in the Russian mirror-trading scandal, as part of an effort to ensure that the Justice Department investigation wasn’t influenced by the lender’s relationship with Trump.“President Trump’s conflict of interest with Deutsche Bank...may undermine the independence and impartiality of the Department’s ongoing investigation and diminish the likelihood that Deutsche Bank and its senior leadership will be brought to justice,” the lawmakers wrote in March.The mirror-trading scheme allowed some of the bank’s wealthy clients in Moscow to convert rubles into western currency through the simultaneous purchase and sale of publicly traded shares, investigators have found.While Deutsche Bank has reached settlements on the Russia deals with several financial watchdogs, it has yet to conclude the probe that is being conducted by the DOJ.Deutsche Bank’s lending to Trump before he was elected amounted to more than $300 million, including loans for the Doral golf resort in Florida, a Washington, D.C., hotel and a Chicago tower, according to a Bloomberg analysis.Deutsche Bank Won’t Disclose Trump Dealings Citing Privacy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXI. Update #14:[First reported on June 13th, 2017]Trump considered firing Mueller:Last month’s appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia enraged President Trump.behind the scenes, the president soon began entertaining the idea of firing Mr. Mueller even as his staff tried to discourage him from something they believed would turn a bad situation into a catastropheA longtime friend, Christopher Ruddy, surfaced the president’s thinking in a television interview Monday night, setting off a frenzied day of speculation that he would go through with it.But people close to Mr. Trump say he is so volatile they cannot be sure that he will not change his mind about Mr. Mueller…Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mr. Mueller, sought to assure a Senate committee on Tuesday that he would not permit Mr. Mueller to be dismissed without legitimate reason, though Mr. Trump could order him to roll back rules that protect the special counsel or fire him if he will not comply.“As long as I’m in this position, he’s not going to be fired without good cause,” Mr. Rosenstein said. “I’m not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders,” he added, emphasizing that the attorney general “actually does not know what we’re investigating.”He said, “Director Mueller is going to have the full independence he needs to conduct that investigation appropriately.”In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee later in the day, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer what he said was a hypothetical question of whether he would support Mr. Mueller.The president was pleased by the ambiguity of his position on Mr. Mueller, and thinks the possibility of being fired will focus the veteran prosecutor on delivering what the president desires most: a blanket public exoneration.Angered by reports in Breitbart News and other conservative news outlets that Mr. Mueller was close to Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump in recent days has repeatedly brought up the political and legal implications of firing someone he now views as incapable of an impartial investigation.He has told his staff, his visitors and his outside advisers that he was increasingly convinced that Mr. Mueller, like Mr. Comey, his successor as director of the F.B.I., was part of a “witch hunt” by partisans who wanted to see him weakened or forced from office.But while the president is deeply suspicious of Mr. Mueller, his anger is reserved for Mr. Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia inquiry, and especially for Mr. Comey.Mr. Trump was especially outraged by Mr. Comey’s admission last week that he had leaked a memo with details of his interactions with the president in hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel.Trump Stews, Staff Steps in, Robert Mueller is Safe for Now>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXII. Update #15:[First reported on June 14th, 2017]Trump is officially being investigated by the special counsel regarding possible obstruction of justice:The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on:Russian meddling during the presidential campaignwhether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9Mueller’s office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.Investigators will also look for any statements the president may have made publicly and privately to people outside the government about his reasons for firing Comey and his concerns about the Russia probe and other related investigationsSpecial Counsel is Investigating Trump for Possible Obstruction of Justice>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXIII. Update #16:[First reported on June 15th, 2017]Mueller is looking at possible money laundering involving Trump associates:A former senior official said Mr. Mueller’s investigation was looking at money laundering by Trump associates.The suspicion is that any cooperation with Russian officials would most likely have been in exchange for some kind of financial payoff, and that there would have been an effort to hide the payments, probably by routing them through offshore banking centers.Mueller Seeks to Talk to Intelligence Officials Hinting at Inquiry into Trump>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXIV. Update #17:[First allegations of this occurred on May 22nd, 2017 - document that recorded this was revealed on June 16th, 2017]Trump asked the NSA chief to announce publicly that he wasn’t under investigation:A recent National Security Agency memo documents a phone call…:Donald Trump pressures agency chief Admiral Mike Rogers to state publicly that there is no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia, say reports.The memo was written by Rick Ledgett, the former deputy director of the NSA, sources familiar with the memo told The Wall Street Journal.The memo said Trump questioned the American intelligence community findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.Memo says Trump pressed NSA chief to absolve him>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXV. Update #18:[Reported on June 15th, 2017]Mike Pence hires a lawyer:U.S. Vice President Mike Pence has hired a lawyer known for defending government officials in high-profile investigations to help him with probes into whether there were ties between the election campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia…Pence hired Richard Cullen, chairman of law firm McGuireWoods, to help him respond to inquiries from special counsel Robert Mueller…Pence had been looking at hiring his own counsel for several weeks, and made his decision earlier this week after interviewing several candidates…Pence hires his own lawyer for Russia probes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXVI. Update #19:[Originally reported on June 16th, 2017]Trump aides were instructed to save all documentation related to the current investigations regarding the Russian probe:Aides and volunteers on Donald Trump’s presidential transition were instructed Thursday to save any records related to “several pending investigations into potential attempts by Russia interests to influence the 2016 election”…In the memo from a transition lawyer, campaign officials were told to preserve all documents related to:the Russian FederationUkrainea number of campaign advisers and officials, including:former campaign manager Paul Manafortadvisers Carter PageRick GatesRoger Stoneformer national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn.“In order to assist these investigations, the Presidential Transition Team and its current and former personnel have a responsibility to ensure that, to the extent potentially relevant documents exist, they are properly preserved,” the memo stated.The request…also told aides and volunteers on the transition to save all foreign travel records.The records included:“emailsvoicemailstext messagesinstant messagessocial media postsWord or WordPerfect documentsspreadsheetsdatabasestelephone logsaudio recordingsvideosphotographs or imagesinformation contained on:desktopslaptopstablet computerssmartphonesor other portable devicescalendar recordsdiary data.”The memo warned that “failure to follow these protocols could result in criminal or civil penalties, and could form the basis of legal claims, legal presumptions, or jury instructions relating to spoliation of evidence.”Trump transition officials ordered to save Russia documents>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXVII. Update #20:[A subpoena was approved by the House Committee on May 31st, 2017 over information Cohen may have regarding Russia as well as asking him to testify before the House Intelligence Committee. On June 16th, Cohen hired his own lawyer.]Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, hires attorney regarding Russia probe:President Donald Trump's longtime attorney and adviser Michael Cohen has hired a lawyer to represent him in the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election…News of the hire comes two weeks after Cohen was subpoenaed by the House intelligence committee as part of the committee's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.Cohen told CNN earlier this week that he is "committed to complying with the subpoena."He has also agreed to testify before the committee…He declined to say whether he is fielding additional investigative inquiries…Cohen served as executive vice president and special counsel at the Trump Organization during Trump's presidential campaign and did not hold a formal title in the campaign.he was a prominent TV surrogate for Trump during the campaign and led the National Diversity Coalition in support of it.Longtime Trump attorney hires lawyer in Russia probe>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXVIII. Update #21:[Trump’s tweet on June 16th, 2017 seems to be about Rosenstein {possibly in regards to rumors that he is considering recusing himself from the investigation into Russia}]Trump’s cryptic tweet that seems to be aimed at Rosenstein:After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my "collusion with the Russians," nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017Because of this tweet, among other concerns, Rosenstein is allegedly considering recusing himself from the Russia Investigation:The president’s attack renewed concerns that Trump could move to oust Mueller from the investigation, which would require Rosenstein’s assent under Justice Department rules.Rosenstein told Congress on Wednesday he would not fire Mueller without the legally required “good cause,” potentially setting up a situation where Trump could fire Rosenstein for refusing to fire the special counsel.Richard Nixon attempted a similar purge of the Watergate special prosecutor’s office in 1973 that was dubbed the Saturday Night Massacre; it ultimately hastened his downfall.News of the obstruction investigation now raises questions about whether Rosenstein will have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because of his direct involvement in Comey’s firing—a decision ABC reported he is mulling over.If he does step aside, ultimate oversight of Mueller’s probe would fall to Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, the Justice Department’s third-in-command.Rosenstein recently discussed his potential recusal, indicating his decision would depend on how the probe unfolded.“He’s going to make the appropriate decisions, and if anything that I did winds up being relevant to his investigation then, as Director Mueller and I discussed, if there’s a need from me to recuse, I will.”While Rosenstein does not exert day-to-day control over Mueller’s probe, he established its parameters and has the ultimate say on any prosecutions that spring from it.Under Justice Department rules, he would also have to notify Congress in writing if he constrains Mueller in any significant way.Rosenstein’s central role in the drama could make him a key witness in an investigation he now oversees, placing him in a troubling ethical spot.Analysis | Did Trump just lay the groundwork to fire the special counsel?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXIX. Update #22:Ways Trump could hypothetically fire Mueller:Chain of command at the DOJ:Here is a quick analysis on how Trump could possibly fire Mueller:Goldsmith’s analysis points to an argument that Trump could simply say that the mandates of those regulations violate his constitutional powers and fire Mueller directly. (An assessment from Marty Lederman at the Just Security blog rejects this idea outright.)Such a move would be challenged, understandably, but if it were somehow upheld by the courts, Mueller would be out.If it weren’t, or if Trump didn’t take this unusual step? We continue.Another question is whether Sessions tries to find some loophole allowing himself to no longer be bound by the recusal he announced in March.He didn’t consider himself bound by that recusal when drafting a letter to Trump advocating Comey’s firing, even though he was actively investigating the Russian meddling, but it’s harder to see how he could simply re-inject himself in the special counsel decision.That said, there doesn’t appear to be anything preventing him from doing so — with the exception of political repercussions that would almost certainly include impeachment.Let’s assume that we go through the normal process. As in the first diagram, the firing of Mueller falls to Rosenstein.It’s highly unlikely that Rosenstein would agree with Trump that Mueller needs to be removed, for reasons we’ll get to in a second.If he didn’t agree, he could reject Trump’s request — and risk being fired.Or he could follow the tradition established in 1973 when the attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than comply with President Richard Nixon’s demand that the special investigator looking at Watergate be fired.If, on the other hand, Rosenstein (or any of the other people in the chain of command that follows below) decided to comply with Trump, they would have one of two options for doing so, according to Goldsmith.Either they’d have to throw out the regulations binding the firing of Mueller (see Goldsmith’s post for a lot of detail on this)or they’d have to establish cause for firing him.If either of those things is done, Mueller is fired.But the former would be exceptional and, given the bounds of the possible causes for firing special counsel — “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies” — it’s unlikely that a viable case for firing Mueller could be made in good faith at this point.If a cause can’t be found by Rosenstein, it’s hard to see how he could continue in that position.With Rosenstein and Sessions out of the picture, the decision falls to Rachel Brand, who faces the same decisions as Rosenstein.If she ends up leaving the picture, it falls to Dana Boente, acting assistant attorney general for national security.If he demurs or won’t dump the regulations/can’t find cause, we keep going.In 1973, the third person in line was the solicitor general, Robert Bork, who agreed with Nixon’s decision.It’s not clear if the acting solicitor general, Jeffrey B. Wall, would be part of this line of succession.If any other Justice officials are confirmed in the period between our writing this and Trump’s decision to fire Mueller, those officials could be slotted in here.At this point, Goldsmith writes, an executive order signed by Trump in March comes into play.It outlines the order of succession in the Department of Justice, running through three U.S. attorneys as next-in-line to leadership.As acting heads of the department, they’d be faced with the same choice as Rosenstein.If each of them demurred, it’s not really clear what would happenthis might prompt Trump to appeal to the option in step one, ignoring the regulations entirely.What’s outlined above is simply the process by which Mueller could legally be removed from his position. What’s not considered (beyond that aside for Sessions) are the political repercussions…Trump’s explicitly removing the person leading an outside inquiry would almost certainly significantly heighten the political pressure he faces.Analysis | How Trump could fire the special counsel (if he were foolish enough to try)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXX. Update #23:[The executive orders referred to below were first reported on June 16th, 2017]Trump may change the rules of succession at the DOJ:An abstract, in-case-of-emergency-break-glass executive order drafted by the Trump administration in March may become real-world applicable as the president, raging publicly at his Justice Department, mulls firing special counsel Robert Mueller.Since taking office, the Trump administration has twice rewritten an executive order that outlines the order of succession at the Justice Department —once after President Donald Trump fired the acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend his travel ban, and then again two months later.The executive order outlines a list of who would be elevated to the position of acting attorney general if the person up the food chain recuses himself, resigns, gets fired, or is no longer in a position to serve.In the past, former Justice Department officials and legal experts said, the order of succession is no more than an academic exercise — a chain of command applicable only in the event of an attack or crisis when government officials are killed and it is not clear who should be in charge.But Trump and the Russia investigation that is tightening around him have changed the game.Trump threatens to break the glass on DOJ succession plan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXXI. Update #24:[Tweeted on June 22nd, 2017]Trump tweeted that he did not have tapes of his conversations with Comey a day before the House Intelligence Committee’s deadline for the White House to hand over recordings (if they existed) of conversations between Trump and Comey (the House Intelligence Committee sought alleged recordings due to Trump’s tweet about them, which I discussed earlier in Update #8):...whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2017This shows that Trump continues to prove that he has no regard for transparency or truth. Trump also seems to be implicating himself:But if few people believed that Mr. Trump actually possessed recordings, his motives in warning Mr. Comey that he might have taped him remain a mystery, particularly since it set off a chain of events that accelerated, rather than slowed, the investigation into Mr. Trump and Russia.…the possibility that the conversations were taped without his knowledge, even by the F.B.I. or intelligence agencies, which eavesdrop and intercept calls. Asked whether Mr. Trump believed he was currently under surveillance in the Oval Office, the deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said, “Not that I’m aware of.”The decision to confirm there were no recordings was made by last weekend, when Mr. Trump and his family made their first getaway to Camp David, according to people briefed on the discussions. The White House counsel’s office reviewed the language in the tweet, these people said, and Mr. Trump’s personal legal team was aware of it. The wording did not change significantly over the past few days.But by giving the president some room to claim he might have been referring to someone other than himself doing the taping, his wording could diminish the possibility that his original tweet could have been interpreted as pressure on Mr. Comey before his testimony to the Senate.Yet when shorn of their extraneous details, the tweets essentially confirmed that Mr. Trump had been leveling a baseless threat when he wrote on May 12, “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”…Some legal experts have said the president’s threat could be used in an obstruction of justice case against him, since it could be interpreted as putting pressure on Mr. Comey not to share details of their conversations about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation…“If the president had no tapes, why did he suggest otherwise?” said Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “Did he seek to mislead the public? Was he trying to intimidate or silence James Comey?”…Ms. Sanders said that Mr. Trump had promised to answer that question by the end of the week, and that he had delivered on that promise…The episode was yet another example of Mr. Trump’s predilection for sowing confusion and uncertainty. It also, at least temporarily, threw the news media off the trail of the Russia investigation…At times, he has told reporters that he was taping an interview or a phone call, but then declined to produce one. Other times, according to former aides, Mr. Trump was believed to have taped calls or conversations in his office at Trump Tower. That made it harder to discern the truth when the president raised the prospect that he had recorded Mr. Comey.Trump Says He Did Not Tape Comey Conversations>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXXII. Update #25:[Occurred on June 30th, 2017]One of the reasons the White House originally gave regarding Comey’s firing was that “Comey had lost the confidence of those working at the FBI” (I covered this is Update #6).At the FBI, Family Day showed that the accusation above from the White House is faulty. Family Day at the FBI:…is for FBI employees, friends and families to visit the US intelligence service and take part in activities including SWAT demonstrations.During Family Day, FBI employees showed up donning “#ComeyIsMyHomey” t-shirts:These t-shirts reflect support towards Comey from many FBI employees - that contradicts what the White House tried to claim as basis for firing him:Many within the bureau were alarmed at Mr Trump’s dismissal of Mr Comey. Bobby Chacon, a former FBI agent, said the decision was like a “punch in the stomach to agents”…Other former agents said the way Mr Comey was fired was an “outrage” and said that the Trump administration’s approach “besmirches the reputation of the FBI”.FBI employees wearing 'Comey is my homey' t-shirts in support for sacked boss>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<So, regarding the outline above, this is what I think:If Trump wanted to fire Comey regarding Comey’s handling of Clinton’s email investigation, he should have done this months ago.Trump firing Comey, who is investigating potential ties between Trump, Trump’s officials and Russian interference, looks like the obstruction of an investigation since Comey could end up being a threat to Trump’s presidency.In conclusion, I think Trump fired Comey based on an effort to cover up possible evidence regarding the probe into Russia.Given all the updates I’ve added since I first wrote this answer, I think my conclusion has become more valid.

1. A certain school of thought in India appears concerned as regards the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, formerly a Bill, introduced by the Union Minister of Home Affairs, Shri Amit Shah, in the Lok Sabha.2. On 10 December 2019, the Bill was passed by Lok Sabha at 12:11 A.M. (IST) with 311 Members of Parliament voting in favour, and 80 against it.3. The Bill was subsequently passed by Rajya Sabha on 11 December 2019 with 125 Members of Parliament voting for it and 105 against it.4. The Bill received assent from the President of India on 12 December 2019, and it assumed the status of an Act. It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.5. It must first be clarified what the Act intends to achieve. It is an Act to further amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act.6. The Amendment Act seeks to do the following:6.1. insert a proviso to Section 2(1)(b) (i.e. clause (b) of Sub-section 1 of Section 2) of the Principal Act. After the amendment, clause (b) of Sub-section 1 would read as follows.—"Illegal migrant means a foreigner who has entered into India--without a valid passport or other travel documents and such other document or authority as may be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf; orwith a valid passport or other travel documents and other such document or authority as may be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf but remains therein beyond the permitted period of time;(proviso) Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act."6.2. insert section 6B after section 6A of the Principle Act. After the amendment, the aforementioned sections would read as follows.--"[6A. Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord.―(1) For the purposes of this section―(a) “Assam” means the territories included in the State of Assam immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 (65 of 1985);(b) “detected to be a foreigner” means detected to be a foreigner in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946) and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 by a Tribunal constituted under the said Order;(c) “specified territory” means the territories included in Bangladesh immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 (65 of 1985);(d) a person shall be deemed to be Indian origin, if he, or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in undivided India;(e) a person shall be deemed to have been detected to be a foreigner on the date on which a Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 submits its opinion to the effect that he is a foreigner to the officer or authority concerned.(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), all persons of Indian origin who came before the lst day of January, 1966 to Assam from the specified territory (including such of those whose names were included in the electoral rolls used for the purposes of the General Election to the House of the People held in 1967) and who have been ordinarily resident in Assam since the dates of their entry into Assam shall be deemed to be citizens of India as from the lst day of January, 1966.(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), every person of Indian origin who―(a) came to Assam on or after the lst day of January, 1966 but before the 25th day of March, 1971 from the specified territory; and(b) has, since the date of his entry into Assam, been ordinarily resident in Assam; and(c) has been detected to be a foreigner;shall register himself in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government in this behalf under section 18 with such authority (hereafter in this sub-section referred to as the registering authority) as may be specified in such rules and if his name is included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency in force on the date of such detection, his name shall be deleted therefrom.Explanation.―In the case of every person seeking registration under this sub-section, the opinion of the Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 holding such person to be a foreigner, shall be deemed to be sufficient proof of the requirement under clause (c) of this subsection and if any question arises as to whether such person complies with any other requirement under this sub-section, the registering authority shall,― (i) if such opinion contains a finding with respect to such other requirement, decide the question in conformity with such finding; (ii) if such opinion does not contain a finding with respect to such other requirement, refer the question to a Tribunal constituted under the said Order hang jurisdiction in accordance with such rules as the Central Government may make in this behalf under section 18 and decide the question in conformity with the opinion received on such reference.(4) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall have, as from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner and till the expiry of a period of ten years from that date, the same rights and obligations as a citizen of India (including the right to obtain a passport under the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and the obligations connected therewith), but shall not entitled to have his name included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency at any time before the expiry of the said period of ten years.(5) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be a citizen of India for all purposes as from the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner.(6) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8―(a) if any person referred to in sub-section (2) submits in the prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed authority within sixty days from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 (65 of 1985), a declaration that he does not wish to be a citizen of India, such person shall not be deemed to have become a citizen of India under that sub-section;(b) if any person referred to in sub-section (3) submits in the prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed authority within sixty days from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985(65 of 1985), or from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner, whichever is later, a declaration that he does not wish to be governed by the provisions of that sub-section and sub-sections (4) and (5), it shall not be necessary for such person to register himself under sub-section (3).Explanation.―Where a person required to file a declaration under this sub-section does not have the capacity to enter into a contract, such declaration may be filed on his behalf by any person competent under the law for the time being in force to act on his behalf.(7) Nothing in sub-sections (2) to (6) shall apply in relation to any person―(a) who, immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 (65 of 1985), is a citizen of India;(b) who was expelled from India before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946).(8) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.]6B. (1) The Central Government or an authority specified by it in this behalf may, subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed, on an application made in this behalf, grant a certificate of registration or certificate of naturalisation to a person referred to in the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2.(2) Subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in section 5 or the qualifications for naturalisation under the provisions of the Third Schedule, a person granted the certificate of registration or certificate of naturalisation under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a citizen of India from the date of his entry into India.(3) On and from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, any proceeding pending against a person under this section in respect of illegal migration or citizenship shall stand abated on conferment of citizenship to him:Provided that such person shall not be disqualified for making application for citizenship under this section on the ground that the proceeding is pending against him and the Central Government or authority specified by it in this behalf shall not reject his application on that ground if he is otherwise found qualified for grant of citizenship under this section:Provided further that the person who makes the application for citizenship under this section shall not be deprived of his rights and privileges to which he was entitled on the date of receipt of his application on the ground of making such application.(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to tribal area of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura as included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and the area covered under "The Inner Line" notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.'."6.3. add clause (da) to clause (d) and insert a proviso after clause (f) of Section 7D. After the amendment, the aforementioned section would read as follows.--"7D. Cancellation of registration as Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder.―The Central Government may, by order, cancel the registration granted under sub-section (1) of section 7A, if it is satisfied that― (a) the registration as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact; or(b) the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder has shown disaffection towards the Constitution, as by law established; or(c) the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder has, during any war in which India may be engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in, or associated with, any business or commercial activity that was to his knowledge carried on in such manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or(d) the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder has, within five years after registration under sub-section (1) of section 7A, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years; or(da) the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder has violated any of the provisions of this Act or provisions of any other law for time being in force as may be specified by the Central Government in the notification published in the Official Gazette; or";(e) it is necessary so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public; or(f) the marriage of an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder, who has obtained such Card under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 7A,―(i) has been dissolved by a competent court of law or otherwise; or(ii) has not been dissolved but, during the subsistence of such marriage, he has solemnised marriage with any other person.Provided that no order under this section shall be passed unless the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."6.4. insert clause (eei) after clause (ee) in sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Principal Act. After the amendment, the aforementioned sub-section would read as follows.--(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for―(e) the cancellation of the registration of, and the cancellation and amendment of certificates of naturalisation relating to, persons deprived of citizenship under this Act, and the delivering up of such certificates for those purposes;(ee) the manner and form in which and the authority to whom declarations referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (6) of section 6A shall be submitted and other matters connected with such declarations;(eei) the conditions, restrictions and manner for granting certificate of registration or certificate of naturalisation under sub-section (1) of section 6B;6.5. insert a proviso in clause (d) in the Third Schedule of the Principal Act, which would read, after the amendment, as follows.--THE THIRD SCHEDULE[See Section 6(1)]The qualifications for naturalisation of a person (Subs. by s. 18, ibid., for “who is not a citizen of a country specified in the First Schedule” (w.e.f. 3-12-2004)) are―(a) that he is not a subject or citizen of any country where citizens of India are prevented by law or practice of that country from becoming subjects or citizens of that country by naturalisation;(b) that, if he is a citizen of any country (Subs. by s. 18, ibid., for “he has renounced the citizenship of that country in accordance with the law therein in force in that behalf and has notified such renunciation to the Central Government” (w.e.f. 3-12-2004)),(c) that he has either resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India or partly the one and partly the other, throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of the application;[Provided that if the Central Government is satisfied that special circumstances exist, it may, after recording the circumstances in writing, relax the period of twelve months up to a maximum of thirty days which may be in different breaks.](d) that during the [fourteen years] immediately preceding the said period of twelve months, he has either resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India, or partly the one and partly the other, for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than [eleven years];(proviso) [Provided that for the person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community in Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, the aggregate period of residence or service of Government in India as required under this clause shall be read as "not less than five years" in place of "not less than eleven years"](e) that he is of good character;(f) that he has an adequate knowledge of a language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution; and(g) that in the event of a certificate of naturalisation being granted to him, he intends to reside in India, or to enter into, or continue in, service under a Government in India or under an international organisation of which India is a member or under a society, company or body of persons established in India:Provided that the Central Government may, if in the special circumstances of any particular case it thinks fit,―(i) allow a continuous period of twelve months ending not more than six months before the date of the application to be reckoned, for the purposes of clause (c) above, as if it had immediately preceded that date;(ii) allow periods of residence or service earlier than [fifteen years] before the date of the application to be reckoned in computing the aggregate mentioned in clause (d) above.6.6. The Third Schedule requires us to see Section 6(1) i.e. sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Principal Act. For the purpose of comprehension, I enumerate here what the aforementioned sub-section details:6. Citizenship by naturalisation.— (1) Where an application is made in the prescribed manner by any person of full age and capacity [not being an illegal migrant] for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation to him, the Central Government may, if satisfied that the applicant is qualified for naturalisation under the provisions of the Third Schedule, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation:Provided that, if in the opinion of the Central Government, the applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally, it may waive all or any of the conditions specified in the Third Schedule.7. Now that the Amendment Act has been described in its entirety, it is of prudence to understand a few basics.8. What is meant by naturalization? It is the admittance of a foreigner to the citizenship of the concerned country. The qualifications for the naturalization of a person are enumerated in the Third Schedule of the Principal Act.9. What are the objections raised by the critics of the Amendment Act? Leading opposition parties say the bill is discriminatory as it singles out Muslims who constitute nearly 15 percent of country's population. It is also said that the Amendment Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution — the Right to Equality.10. Quoting from the Economic Times, "The Bill has triggered widespread protests in northeastern states where many feel that permanent settlement of illegal immigrants will disturb the region's demography and further burden resources and decrease employment opportunities for indigenous people. A large section of people and organisations opposing the Bill also say it will nullify the provisions of the Assam Accord of 1985, which fixed March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for deportation of all illegal immigrants irrespective of religion."11. Opponents have also raised the following concerns: If the Bill (now Act), like it says is to protect the minorities, why are they excluding the Muslim minorities, who have faced persecution in their own countries?12. On Swarajya – Read India Right, an online news portal, a constitutional defence for the Act was published. It can be accessed here: A Constitutional Defence Of The Citizenship Amendment Bill .13. In actuality, the Act does not confer citizenship upon anyone but merely removes the disability on Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan from acquisition of citizenship by “naturalization”, if they are illegal immigrants (those who have entered the country without valid travel documents or overstayed).14. The Third Schedule of the Principal Act detailed in point 6.5. needs to, however, be satisfied.15. In 1947, India's leadership had to, on one hand, accept the cold hard fact of mass migration of Hindus from Pakistan (includes present Bangladesh), and on the other hand, ideologically, they were unwilling to accept the two-nation theory.16. Articles 5 to 10 of the Indian Constitution accommodated these concerns. The crux of the articles can be articulated as follows:Article 5: anyone born in India and domiciled in India would be an Indian citizen.Article 6: if he has entered from the territory of Pakistan or Bangladesh, he has to register.Article 7: anyone migrating to Pakistan from India will lose Indian citizenship if they have migrated to the Islamic nation.Article 8: extends citizenship to persons of Indian origin.Article 9: terminates Indian citizenship upon acquisition of foreign citizenship.Article 10: the citizenship of persons having acquired the same under these provisions cannot be taken away.17. Therefore, if analyzed critically, it would be evident that these provisions do not identify the communities by name but clearly create a de-facto policy favouring the Hindu and Sikh immigrants from Pakistan over largely Muslim emigrants from India.18. According to Suvrajyoti Gupta, an Assistant Professor of Law at the OP Jindal Global University, this is not occasioned by any malice towards the Muslims, but simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the erstwhile Pakistan (Pakistan + Bangladesh) is an Islamic country (as per 1949 Objectives Resolution and later the Constitution of Bangladesh), and given the nature of politics of these countries, the return of the Hindu/Sikh migrants would never be possible.19. Post commencement of the Constitution, the power to enact a law for acquisition and termination of citizenship was left to the Parliament (Article 11).20. A common objection raised to the Amendment Act is the principle of "secularism". Critics argue that since all laws in India have to be in accordance with provision of Part-III, (fundamental rights), even acquisition of citizenship has to comply with the principle of “secularism”.21. Suvrajyoti Gupta says that Secularism is a Constitutional value diffused throughout Part-III. The relevant Articles could be:Article 14 (Equality before law);Article 21 (right to life and liberty);Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth);Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment);Article 25 (freedom of conscience);Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs);Article 27 (prohibition on religion specific tax);Article 28 (protection of minority script and culture) and finallyArticle 30 (rights of minorities to administer educational institutions).Unfortunately, except for Articles 14 and 21, all these Articles apply to “citizens”, and thus the secularism of the Constitution seems to be directed exclusively towards citizens and not foreigners yet to acquire citizenship.22. Now, Article 14 of the Constitution states expressly: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.23. However, there are exceptions to the Article. It allows reasonable classification, i.e. classification if:the classification is based on an intelligible differentia, andthe differentia has a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved.This was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 1958: Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 195824. Opponents say that the Amendment Act is under-inclusive because if the purpose of classification is “religious persecution” then it fails to bring Muslim communities like Rohingyas in Bangladesh and Ahmediyas in Pakistan within its ambit.25. Suvrajyoti Gupta says that the justiciability of citizenship or laws that regulate the ingress of foreigners is often treated as a ‘sovereign space’ where the courts are reluctant to intervene. This is illustrated by the following:In Trump v Hawaii No. 17-965, 585 U.S. (2018), the US Supreme Court upheld travel ban from several Muslim countries holding that regulation of foreigners including ingress is “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”Indian Courts have followed a similar approach. In David John Hopkins vs. Union of India (1997), the Madras High Court held that the right of the Union to refuse citizenship is absolute and not fettered by equal protection under Article 14.Similarly in Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court held that a right of a foreigner in India is confined to Article 21 and he cannot seek citizenship as a matter of right.26. Therefore, if the court enters into a review of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, on merits, the State can easily satisfy the technical test for reasonable classification.27. In point 23, a term "intelligible differentia" was used. What does it mean? It simply means a classification basis capable of being understood. It has been explained by Suvrajyoti Gupta in a historical context.28. The partition of Bengal and Punjab have been diametrically opposite historical experiences. In Punjab, partition was a jhatka — mass slaughter followed by population exchange. By 1949, the relative demographics of the communities have stabilized. Articles 5 to 10 of the Constitution more or less settled the question of citizenship in the west.29. In Bengal, it was a “halal” — slow destruction of the Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh over a period of 70 years. The Hindu population in Bangladesh fell from 23 per cent in 1947 (when it was East Pakistan) to about 9 per cent in 2011. Since the early 1980s, the eastern border also saw the proliferation of Muslim migrants. This migration created justified demographic anxieties in Assam and the North East, resulting in protracted insurgencies.30. India has traditionally not been able to address this. In 1950, the Nehru-Liaquat Ali Treaty was entered into to ‘ensure to the minorities throughout its territory complete equality..’ which included ‘freedom of movement’. It failed miserably. Thereafter, India maintained a policy of granting citizenship under registration under section 5(1) of the Act.31. This, too, was discontinued after the Bangladesh war through an executive order dated 29 November 1971, whereby the Government of India through its Under Secretary C.L. Goyal issued an express letter No. 26011/16/71-10 to the Chief Secretaries to all state governments and Union Territory Administrations.The order reads: Grant of Indian citizenship to refugees from East Bengal who have crossed over to India after 25 March 1971 — instructing not to register the refugees from East Pakistan as Citizens.32. This policy was solidified by the amendment of the Citizenship Act in 2004 that now requires a person not to be an “illegal immigrant” (i.e. someone who has entered India without valid papers) to be registered as citizens.33. Thus, a vast number of Bengali Hindus from Bangladesh live and work in India and own properties and documents but have no locus standi for citizenship. The Act merely seeks to address their predicament.34. This being settled, further concerns were raised. The reasoning was that migration is largely driven by ‘climate vulnerabilities, economic opportunities, community networks et cetera’.35. While these could indeed be ancillary reasons for migration, the prosecution of the Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh is a well-established fact. This is acknowledged internationally, being part of the records of the United National High Commission for Refugees, Report of the US Commission on Religious Freedom and various international organisations.36. The Muslim immigrants, all said and done, do not suffer from religious persecution. The court can simply take judicial notice of it under section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) thereby establishing the “intelligible differentia”. The law, by taking note of the fact, has eliminated the need for every migrant to prove the fact of “persecution”. Under section 57, all Courts are required to take judicial notice of all laws in force in the territory of India as well as all Acts passed by Parliament. If the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person produces any such book or document as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so.37. What are the summed up objectives of the legislation? They are twofold, namely.--Protection of the de-facto refugees (de-facto because in India refugee is an administrative rather than legal category)Protection of national security by regulating immigration in India.38. These objectives have been vetted by the Supreme Court itself. The court has considered refugee influx as external aggression under Article 355 (Sarbananda Sonowal (2005) 5SCC 655).39. It was the Supreme Court which took the initiative on the NRC in Assam. (Assam Public Works v Union of India 2009).40. At the same time, it has been proactive in protecting the rights of the de-facto refugees from Bangladesh (National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996).41. As for the Ahmediyas and Rohingyas, nothing prevents them from seeking Indian citizenship through naturalization (if they enter with valid travel documents).42. Harish Salve, a leading luminary in the field of law and the ex-Solicitor General of India, had the following points to make in an interview to NDTV:The people of the three neighbouring countries chosen in the Amendment Act have a lot of ethnic connections to India. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate classification.As regards non-inclusion of other countries such as China or those in Africa, it is a policy argument and not a constitutional law argument.Under-inclusion (i.e. not including other countries) of this kind in a citizenship law does not violate Article 14. It could have been made one-country specific (for e.g. Pakistan-specific), which would have been arbitrary. The extent of relaxation of migration law is purely a matter of policy. One Government may expand it to Myanmar, Sri Lanka, China, beyond the immediate neighbours and so on. Article 14 is not to second-guess the policy of Parliament.The requirement of intelligible differentia has been satisfied. The three chosen countries are neighbouring countries which are Islamic states. There is a basis, that these are Islamic states where the other communities named in the Amendment Act are minorities. This is a relaxation of migration law and not a ban on migration. Therefore, it does not violate Article 14. The law as it stands excludes everybody, and is merely opening a window for the minorities of those countries.For the purpose of this Act, migration for reasons other than state persecution on the ground that these are Islamic states, is not a valid basis. If a person, who belongs to the majority community of these countries, wants to migrate for reasons such as political asylum or economic factors, the doors are still open to him. Such a migrant shall be treated according to the existing laws of asylum or immigration. This Amendment Act is merely an extra window open for minorities. This does not violate Article 14 at all.Persecution can be on account of political beliefs, on account of religious beliefs, on account of social beliefs. We have, through this Act, recognized one form of persecution, which is constitutionally valid. Whether or not we recognize other forms of persecution is a matter of policy. These countries are indeed Islamic republics, so we allow migration to those who are declared minorities in these countries. The classification is legal. Should others be allowed? It is a matter of policy.The Amhadiyas and the rest are not persecuted on grounds of religion. There are, as mentioned earlier, other forms of persecution as well. Are we going to recognize all forms of persecution? Legally, we don't have to. In constitutional law, we do not have to redress all wrongs in order to redress some wrongs. That is how Article 14 is to be understood in legal terms. It is not the job of the Courts if the Government addresses some wrongs. It is for the Parliament to debate and discuss whether the scope is to be expanded (a policy argument)."Minorities in a country which have a declared state religion" constitutes intelligible differentia. The provision has a nexus with this differentia, in the sense that these minorities are allowed migration. That is where the Article 14 inquiry must end, because Courts do not second-guess this form of legislative wisdom.We are not forbidden to do something not expressly written in the Constitution, unless what we do has itself been prohibited by the Constitution. Speaking for myself, I do not see how accommodating persecuted minorities violates the principles of secularism. In the Tamil context, if we announce that we would allow people of Indian ethnicity to migrate to India, that would not violate either Article 14 or principles of secularism. One may argue that the policy should have been more magnanimous, but again, it is not legally tenable that the Act violates the Constitution.When one announces, for example, that we would allow Sikhs to migrate owing to potential persecution, it is not necessary for the migrating Sikhs to prove that they have been persecuted. It is based on a class. Is there a basis for this class? Yes, that these are minorities in those countries. Are these countries generally intolerant of minorities? In India's view, yes. The onus is not on the migrants to prove persecution. On the contrary, the onus is on those who assert that the Amendment Act is violative of Article 14, to prove that there is no persecution in the mentioned countries.The Indian minorities would not be affected even if NRC is passed without the Amendment Act succeeding, because the Act does not intend to make conditions of Indian minorities worse, but make the conditions of the minorities in the mentioned countries better.This Amendment Act has nothing to do with the NRC. If the NRC exercise is flawed, it would lead to many Indians being thrown out even without the Amendment Act coming into force. Even the Government has recognized the flaws of NRC. However, the NRC is a completely different concern. The Act has nothing to do with that. It, in fact, reduces the enormity of that exercise, because it reduces the number of people who would have had to leave India otherwise.43. My only personal objection is that the Act has a shortcoming. It does not address the possibility of granting refuge to atheists, who also face persecution in these three countries.44. Thus, my answer on the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, stands concluded.

I’ve answered this question before, most recently here, so I’ll just restate that. TL;DR, yes, certainly according to experts on Apartheid and other matters like Mandela, Tutu, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, Adalah, the Haifa-based Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, D'Alema the former premier of Italy, Ronnie Kasrils as a leading member of the African National Congress during the apartheid era and former government minister, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, John Dugard, John Reynolds and many others. An example biography of one of the experts I quoted :Apartheid in Occupied Palestine: A Rejoinder to Yaffa Zilbershats“John Dugard is Emeritus Professor of International Law at the University of Leiden and Honorary Professor in the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria. He served as a member of the International Law Commission from 1997–2011 and as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 2001–2008. He has also served as judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice. John Reynolds is the EJ Phelan Fellow in International Law at the National University of Ireland, Galway.”“John Reynolds (pictured right) is the EJ Phelan Fellow in International Law at the National University of Ireland, Galway.Since I first wrote an answer, it’s actually worse with the nation state law described in Vox, i.e.:Israel’s hugely controversial "nation-state" law, explained“The law does three big things:It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.”It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.””“The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, an Israeli human rights organization, has documented entrenched discrimination and socioeconomic differences in “land, urban planning, housing, infrastructure, economic development, and education.” More than half the poor families in Israel are Arab, and Arab municipalities are the poorest in Israel, according to ACRI.What’s more, ACRI says that Arab Israelis are treated with “hostility and mistrust” and that “large sections of the Israeli public [view] the Arab minority as both a fifth column and a demographic threat.”For Arab Israelis, then, the new nation-state law is merely the culmination of years of institutional discrimination. Only now the discrimination is officially enshrined in Israel’s basic law — the country’s constitutional equivalent.”Other experts make similar conclusions - Israel worse than an apartheid state“Recently Yigal Elam, the known Israeli historian, wrote: “The state is, first and foremost, the rule of law, this is its essence, it is not the authority of the people, or the rule of the majority, it is not either the rule of the elites.” He added: “But things have been mixed up with us lately. Israel has given up and removed from under its feet the rule on which any civilised country stands, because the state, which does not recognise its civil content as a priori, appears to be an abnormal state.”Elam concluded: “With the [new Israeli] National Law, the principle of achieving and guaranteeing equality in the social and political rights of all citizens, regardless of religious, ethnic or gender affiliation, is removed. Within such a situation, Israel is not a state but a quasi-state, because the state that denies its civil essence is not worthy of being recognised as a State”.”So back to my original answer, why do people say that Israel is an apartheid state, because of the evidence. It’s easy to cherry pick the odd Arab Muslim celebrity that makes it through the system, so instead I’ll start with Rima Najjar excellent answer Rima Najjar's answer to Do Palestinians from the West Bank all require a biometric ID card to get into Israel, or are their traditional hawiya and permit enough?, specifically this part, the infographic below Identity Crisis: The Israeli ID System which highlights the differential treatment:Another one from Visualizing Palestine shows how roads are separated:Israel's System of Segregated Roads in the Occupied Palestinian TerritoriesAlso, these areas are what Ariel Sharon referred to as the "bantustan model", the same model as the “homelands” in South Africa. This was reported by many news organisations, including here below in Haaretz: People and Politics / Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope:“The former premier from the Italian left said that three or four years ago he had a long conversation with Sharon, who was in Rome for a brief visit. According to D'Alema, Sharon explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict.The defender of Israel quickly protested. "Surely that was your personal interpretation of what Sharon said."D'Alema didn't give in. "No, sir, that is not interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister."Supplementary evidence backing D'Alema's story can be found in an expensively produced brochure prepared for Tourism Minister Benny Elon, who is promoting a two-state solution - Israel and Jordan. Under the title "The Road to War: a tiny protectorate, overpopulated, carved up and demilitarized," the Moledet Party leader presents "the map of the Palestinian state, according to Sharon's proposal." Sharon's map is surprisingly similar to the plan for protectorates in South Africa in the early 1960s. Even the number of cantons is the same - 10 in the West Bank (and one more in Gaza). Dr. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, notes that the South Africans only managed to create four of their 10 planned Bantustans.The Bantustan model, says Liel, was the ugliest of all the tricks used to perpetuate the apartheid regime in most of South Africa's territory. By 1986, unrest in the Bantustans turned into ongoing rioting and terror, which descended into coups in the so-called independent regimes, and South African intervention. The minuscule support the Bantustan governments did enjoy evaporated, so by January 1994, they were finally dismantled and became integrated into the united South Africa of black majority rule.”read more: People and Politics / Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hopeFrom Rula Jebreal in the New York timesChief among the more than 50 discriminatory Israeli laws documented by Adalah, the Haifa-based Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, is the Law of Return, which automatically guarantees Israeli citizenship for every Jew regardless of birthplace. Often, they are shepherded into settlements in the West Bank (illegal under international law), where they receive government benefits. Palestinian Israeli citizens, meanwhile, are subject to a ban on family reunification: If they marry a fellow Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza, they are prohibited from living in Israel under the Citizenship and Entry Into Israel Law.In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city.Further ethnic separation is maintained by the education system. Aside from a few mixed schools, most educational institutions in Israel are divided into Arab and Jewish ones. According to Nurit Peled-Elhanan, a Hebrew University professor of sociology who has produced the most comprehensive survey of Israeli public school curriculums, not one positive reference to Palestinians exists in Israeli high school textbooks. Palestinians are described as either “Arab farmers with no nationality” or fearsome “terrorists,” as Professor Peled-Elhanan documented in her book “Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education.”Calling Israel's occupation of Palestine apartheid isn't lazy or inflammatory – it's based on fact“Do Israeli laws and practices match this definition? In the words of the US State Department, Palestinian citizens face “institutional and societal discrimination”. This affects areas such as immigration and family life, land and housing.”I fought South African apartheid. I see the same brutal policies in IsraelRonnie Kasrils“I was shut down in South Africa for speaking out, and I’m disturbed that the same is happening to critics of Israel now• Ronnie Kasrils was a leading member of the African National Congress during the apartheid era and former government minister‘Benjamin Netanyahu said recently: ‘Israel is not a state of all its citizens … Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and them alone.’ Photograph: Amir Levy/Getty ImagesAs a Jewish South African anti-apartheid activist I look with horror on the far-right shift in Israel ahead of this month’s elections, and the impact in the Palestinian territories and worldwide.Israel’s repression of Palestinian citizens, African refugees and Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza has become more brutal over time. Ethnic cleansing, land seizure, home demolition, military occupation, bombing of Gaza and international law violations led Archbishop Tutu to declare that the treatment of Palestinians reminded him of apartheid, only worse.”Someone who understood Apartheid well - Nelson Mandela:Nelson Mandela Speaking on Palestine [Extracts]From Mandela’s address at The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (4 December 1997). Tellingly, he CHOSE TO USE the word “Palestinian”."Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians "Nelson Mandela’s harsh attack on Israel at the start of his three-day visit to Australia.“The deputy president of the African National Congress likened Israel to a terrorist state.”We identify with them because we do not believe it is right for the Israeli government to suppress basic human rights in the conquered territories.” Mandela declared.”"If one has to refer to any of the parties as a terrorist state, one might refer to the Israeli government, because they are the people who are slaughtering defenseless and innocent Arabs in the occupied territories, and we don’t regard that as acceptable.”"My view is that talk of peace remains hollow if Israel continues to occupy Arab lands””From a BBC report - Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'“South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians.The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".In a speech in the United States, carried in the UK's Guardian newspaper, Archbishop Tutu said he saw "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about".Tutu: Issue is the same in Palestine as it was in South Africa, ‘equality’ – Mondoweiss“I have been to the Ocupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid. I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government.”Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? - A study coordinated by the Middle East Project of the Democracy and Governance Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa“Israel’s practices in the Occupied Territories, (OPT) can be defined by the same three ‘pillars’ of apartheid. The first pillar derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews. The product of this in the OPT is an institutionalised system that privileges Jewish settlers and discriminates against Palestinians on the basis of the inferior status afforded to non-Jews by Israel. At the root of this system are Israel’s citizenship laws, whereby group identity is the primary factor in determining questions involving the acquisition of Israeli citizenship. The 1950 Law of Return defines who is a Jew for purposes of the law and allows every Jew to immigrate to Israel or the OPT. The 1952 Citizenship Law then grants automatic citizenship to people who immigrate under the Law of Return, while erecting insurmountable obstacles to citizenship for Palestinian refugees. Israeli law conveying special standing to Jewish identity is then applied extra-territorially to extend preferential legal status and material privileges to Jewish settlers in the OPT and thus discriminate against Palestinians. The review of Israel’s practices under Article 2 of the Apartheid Convention provides abundant evidence of discrimination against Palestinians that flows from that inferior status, in realms such as the right to leave and return to one’s country, freedom of movement and residence, and access to land. The 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law banning Palestinian family unification is a further example of legislation that confers benefits to Jews over Palestinians and illustrates the adverse impact of having the status of Palestinian Arab. The disparity in how the two groups are treated by Israel is highlighted through the application of a harsher set of laws and different courts for Palestinians in the OPT than for Jewish settlers, as well as through the restrictions imposed by the permit and ID systems.The second pillar is reflected in Israel’s grand policy to fragment the OPT for the purposes of segregation and domination. This policy is evidenced by: Israel’s extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians. That these measures are intended to segregate the population along racial lines in violation of Article 2(d) of the Apartheid Convention is clear from the visible web of walls, separate roads, and checkpoints, and the invisible web of permit and ID systems, that combine to ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. Whether the confinement of Palestinians to certain reserves or enclaves within the OPT is analogous to South African ‘grand apartheid’ in the further sense that Israel intends Palestinian rights ultimately to be met by the creation of a State in parts of the OPT whose rationale is based on racial segregation engages political questions beyond the scope and method of this study. Within the scope of this study is that, much as the same restrictions functioned in apartheid South Africa, the policy of geographic fragmentation has the effect of crushing Palestinian socio-economic life, securing Palestinian vulnerability to Israeli economic dominance, and of enforcing a rigid segregation of Palestinian and Jewish populations. The fragmentation of the territorial integrity of a self-determination unit for the purposes of racial segregation and domination is prohibited by international law.The third pillar upon which Israel’s system of apartheid in the OPT rests is its ‘security’ laws and policies. The extrajudicial killing, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of Palestinians, as described under the rubric of Article 2(a) of the Apartheid 22 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Convention, are all justified by Israel on the pretext of security. These policies are State-sanctioned, and often approved by the Israeli judicial system, and supported by an oppressive code of military laws and a system of improperly constituted military courts. Additionally, this study finds that Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement also often purports to mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination, and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group. This study does not contend that Israel’s claims about security are by definition lacking in merit; however, Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate severe policies and disproportionate practices toward the Palestinians often masks the intent to suppress Palestinian opposition to a system of domination by one racial group over another.”In the European Journal of International Law - Apartheid, International Law, and the Occupied Palestinian TerritoryJohn Dugard, John Reynolds“The available evidence suggests that Israel is responsible for committing inhuman acts within the meaning of Article 2(a), (c), (d), and (f) of the Apartheid Convention, while it does not suggest Israeli culpability for the inhuman acts described by Article 2(b) and (e) of the Convention.Article 2(a) relates to the denial to a member or members of a racial group of the right to life and liberty of person. Israel’s policies and practices in the West Bank include denial of the right to life through state-sanctioned extra-judicial killings of Palestinians opposed to the occupation, including the targeting of political leaders and militants at times when they were not participating in hostilities and were thus protected by international humanitarian law.127To aggravate matters, such targeted killings have often resulted in the killing of innocent bystanders as ‘collateral damage’.128The Israeli Supreme Court has placed restraints on this practice short of declaring it unlawful,129but it continues unabated. In many cases the killing of Palestinian militants constitutes the extra-judicial killing of persons who could be arrested and brought to trial rather than summarily executed. South Africa’s apartheid security forces on occasion killed political opponents in an arbitrary and secretive manner,130but in most instances they preferred to bring such persons to trial. This was because treason and terrorism were capital crimes in a country that then practised the death penalty. Arguably, South Africa’s judicially approved execution of militants was more forthright than Israel’s extrajudicial executions, which allow militants to be killed while at the same time allowing Israel to proclaim proudly that it does not practise the death penalty. Certainly apartheid South Africa did not practise systematic extrajudicial killings openly and with the public authorization of senior security and political officials as is done by Israel.”ISRAELI APARTHEID FACTSHEET - War on Want NGOUN OFFICIALS AND COMMITTEES ON ISRAEL AND APARTHEIDIsrael’s treatment of Palestinians has been regularly cited by UN Special Rapporteurs on the Human Rights Situation in Palestine as evidence of an Apartheid system in action. For example:● Richard Falk, emeritus professor of law at Princeton University and UN special rapporteur 2008-2014, wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Council that Israel is guilty of racial discrimination, apartheid and torture in its “systematic oppression” of the Palestinian people. (UN document A/HRC/25/67)● John Dugard, South African law professor and Falk’s predecessor in the post of UN Special Rapporteur, wrote a detailed study in 2013 on whether the charge of apartheid applies to Israel, concluding: “On the basis of the systemic and institutionalized nature of the racial domination that exists, there are indeed strong grounds to conclude that a system of apartheid has developed in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israeli practices in the occupied territory are not only reminiscent of – and, in some cases, worse than – apartheid as it existed in South Africa, but are in breach of the legal prohibition of apartheid.”● The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination censured Israel in 2012 for implementing “two entirely separate legal systems and sets of institutions for Jewish communities grouped in illegal settlements on the one hand and Palestinian populations living in Palestinian towns and villages on the other hand.” The Committee declared itself “particularly appalled at the hermetic character of the separation of two groups, who live on the same territory but do not enjoy either equal use of roads and infrastructure or equal access to basic services and water resources”. It called on Israel to eradicate all policies and practices of “racial segregation and apartheid” affecting the Palestinian people (UN document CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16).● In March 2017, the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) commissioned and published a report called 'Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid' which concludes, "on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid, and urges swift action to oppose and end it." The report also recommends that national governments and civil society actors should support boycott, divestment and sanctions activities in response to Israel's Apartheid regime.ISRAELI OFFICIALS ON APARTHEIDA number of Israeli government officials have used the term apartheid in reference to Israeli control over Palestinians:● Reuven Rivlin, the currently sitting President of Israel, was quoted in the Israeli press on 12 February 2017 saying that Israel’s newly passed ‘Regularisation Law’, which formally expropriates several tracts of Palestinian land, “will cause Israel to be seen as an apartheid state.”● One of the first people to use the word apartheid in relation to Israel was Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion. Following the 1967 June war, he warned of Israel becoming an “apartheid state” if it retained control of the occupied territory, which it has done.● In 1999, then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak stated: "Every attempt to keep hold of [Israel and the occupied territory] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.” In 2010, Barak repeated the apartheid comparison, stating: "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic… If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."LEGAL SCHOLARS ON APARTHEID AND ISRAEL: ‘OCCUPATION, COLONIALISM, APARTHEID’● In 2009, an international team of legal scholars working under the auspices of the Human Sciences Research Council in Cape Town, South Africa published a study called Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? The study concluded that the Israeli state has imposed a state of Apartheid on the Palestinian people, in that Israel is guilty of many of the practices and policies of Apartheid identified in the Apartheid Convention adopted by the United Nations in 1973, and that these acts together constitute the “integrated and complementary elements of an institutionalised and oppressive system of Israeli domination and oppression over Palestinians as a group; that is, a system of apartheid.”● The study noted that Israel has implemented all three of the pillars that characterised apartheid in the South African context, namely: (a) the categorisation of the population along racial lines; (b) the segregation of the population on the basis of this categorisation into different geographical areas allocated to different racial groups; and (c) a system of laws and policies that subject the Palestinian people to extrajudicial killing, torture and arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as sweeping restrictions on Palestinians’ rights to freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement.PollsPalestinians are seen as second class citizens including the desire to implement ethnic transfer, segregation and exclusion from voting. Looking at the survey, the majority acknowledge Apartheid! One can start with the Times of Israel: Nearly half of Jewish Israelis want to expel Arabs, survey showsPew study finds 79% believe Jews should get preferential treatment over Arab citizensOrSurvey: Most Israeli Jews wouldn't give Palestinians vote if West Bank was annexed (Haaretz)BBC NewsIsraeli anti-Arab racism 'rises'“Israeli Arabs complain they are treated differently to Israel's JewsAn Israeli civil rights group has said racism against Arab citizens of Israel has risen sharply in the past year.In a report, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said expression of anti-Arab views had doubled, and racist incidents had increased by 26%.Christian or Muslim Arab citizens of Israel make up 20% of the population.But the civil rights quoted polls suggesting half of Jewish Israelis do not believe Arab citizens of Israel should have equal rights.About the same amount said they wanted the government to encourage Arab emigration from Israel.In another poll, almost 75% of Jewish youths said Arabs were less intelligent and less clean than Jews.”Ynet News‘Marriage to an Arab is national treason’“Recent poll reveals steep rise in racist views against Arabs in Israel; many participants feel hatred, fear when overhearing Arabic, 75 percent don’t approve of shared apartment buildingsRoee Nahmias|Published: 27.03.07 , 19:55Over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason, according to a recent survey by the Geocartography Institute. The survey, which was conducted for the Center Against Racism, also found that over 75 percent of participants did not approve of apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews. Sixty percent of participants said they would not allow an Arab to visit their home. Five hundred Jewish men and women participated in the poll, which was published Tuesday. “Ynet news againPoll: 36% of Jews want to revoke Arabs' voting rights“While few Israeli Jews say they are nationalistic, many favor anti-democratic values, survey findsThirty-six percent of Israeli Jews are in favor of revoking the voting rights of non-Jews, Yedioth Ahronoth reported, citing findings by the Dahaf polling agency, headed by Dr. Mina Tzemach.”Poll: Half of Israeli high schoolers oppose equal rights for Arabs”“In response to the question of whether Arab citizens should be granted rights equal to that of Jews, 49.5 percent answered in the negative. “Catrina Stewart in The IndependentThe new Israeli apartheid: Poll reveals widespread Jewish support for policy of discrimination against Arab minority“47 per cent of respondents would like to see Israel's Arab citizens stripped of their citizenship rightsClassroom shortages and unequal property rights are ‘proof’ of Israeli Arabs’ second-class status ReutersA new poll has revealed that a majority of Israeli Jews believe that the Jewish State practises "apartheid" against Palestinians, with many openly supporting discriminatory policies against the country's Arab citizens.A third of respondents believe that Israel's Arab citizens should be denied the vote, while almost half – 47 per cent – would like to see them stripped of their citizenship rights and placed under Palestinian Authority control, according to Israel's liberal Haaretz newspaper, which published the poll's findings yesterday.”Times of Israel - Ashkelon warned over Arab worker ban, as poll shows public support“Weinstein wrote in a letter to Shimoni that his singling out of a specific ethnic group for the directive was “likely to have serious public and legal repercussions.”“Not employing workers due to their being Arabs, and having a public official sending the message that employing Arabs is undesirable, does not comply with the law,” Weinstein wrote.In his letter, the attorney general demanded an explanation from Shimoni.Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (Photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)Weinstein’s warning followed fierce condemnation of the Ashkelon mayor’s move from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Reuven Rivlin and politicians from both sides of the political spectrum.But many Israelis backed the directive, which came on the heels of a Tuesday terror attack by Palestinians from East Jerusalem on a synagogue in Har Nof, in which five Israelis were killed, in a part of Jerusalem far from the violence that has wracked the city in recent weeks.A Channel 10 poll showed 58 percent of Israelis supported Shimoni’s move, 32% did not support it and 10% did not know. The channel did not release methodology details.”Academic Research on “Ethnic Democracy”The concept of ethnic democracy dominates the question of Apartheid. Here is an academic paper on the topic with some quotes below it.As’ad Ghanem, Nadim Rouhana and Oren Yiftachel, Questioning “Ethnic Democracy”“As an ethnic state, Israel makes equality between Arab and Jew impossible in practice or in theory. It is membership in the Jewish people, not citizenship in Israel, that is the chief criterion for the claim of state ownership. The state system is predicated on a constitutional arrangement that contradicts the conditions of equal citizenship and, therefore, democracy. The essence of this contradiction stems from Israel’s very raison d’être. As argued elsewhere, (Rouhana 1997), Israel embodies in theory, ideology, and practice exclusive Jewish state ownership in the sense that Israel is the state of the Jewish people only. It is the political tool of the Jewish people regardless of citizenship; thus the state is structurally and openly biased in favor of one of its two main ethnic groups.Accordingly, Israel is an “ethnic state,” in which the exclusive privileges of the dominant ethnic group is constitutionally grounded in a number of most important Basic Laws including the Laws of Return and Citizenship, and Basic Law: the Knesset (Section 7A), which defines Israel as the state of the Jewish people and limits the right of citizens to campaign democratically for representation in the parliament if they do not recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people.(Kretzmer 1990; Rouhana 1997) Thus Israel has been termed a “constitutionally exclusive ethnic state,”[9] whose exclusion of the Arab citizens from its national goals, identity, and mission is constitutional.Furthermore, as elaborated below, a number of laws that deal with most important issues, such as land ownership and control, education, and distribution of resources, openly base privileged treatment on being Jewish. In addition, there are numerous regulations that do not use the term Jewish or Arab explicitly, but which make it clear that preferential treatment of Jewish citizens is supported by statutory law and institutional regulations.[10] These regulations cover a broad range of individual and collective state-supported assistance. Thus, Israel, by imposing the criterion of belonging to a group—ethnic affIliation—for privileged and discriminatory treatment, anchors the violation of equal opportunity in its own law. A Jewish state (in the form established in Israel) cannot provide the prerequisites for equal citizenship and, hence, for democracy. Furthermore, the violations of equal citizenship that are anchored in constitutional law and the legal system itself are supported by broad segments of both the Jewish public and the Jewish elites.Unequal citizenship that is obviously inferior deprives Arab citizens of a meaningful identity that derives from their citizenship. Under the existing ethnic structure that so openly prefers Jew to Arab, and that sometimes treats Arabs as an internal or potential enemy, identification with the state is paramount to accepting constitutional inferiority and being existentially unequal. One of Smooha’s fundamental theoretical and empirical claims is that the Arabs have undergone a profound process of Israelization,[11] a conclusion that is based on conceptual and methodological pitfalls.[12] Israelization, in the sense of accepting Jewish exclusivity and privilege and the Arab inferiority that comes with it, and in the sense of accepting Israel as the state of the Jewish people, is an illusionary identity at best and a distorted identity at worst. The failure to over—even theoretically—equal citizenship means that the only identity Israel can provide is, at its center, one which enforces inequality and exclusion.”The history of Zionism.I’ll begin this part by looking at Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky (1880-1940) and then Arthur Ruppin. Jabotinsky is a huge figure in this narrative:Jabotinsky helped lead Revisionist Zionist Movement which eventually evolved into the post-1948 Herut Party and eventually the Likud Party. His Secretary, a historian Benzion Netanyahu is the father of Binyamin Netanyahu. Benzion’s final book, The Founding Fathers of Zionism, described Israel as a country that—like America—was built on the intellectual foundations of its founders: Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, Israel Zangwill, and Ze’ev Jabotinsky.Jabotinsky also set up the party's youth movement, Betar, which was characterized by militaristic, almost fascist, appearance including dark brown uniforms. Jabotinsky admired Mussolini. His movement repeatedly sought affiliation with and assistance from Rome.In his IRON WALL article that was published in Ha'aretz Daily in 1923. Jabotinsky stated:".... Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan 'No, never' lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights."From "Eliminate the Diaspora, or the Diaspora will surely eliminate you." (From "Tisha B'av 1937"), Jabotinsky said“the source of national feeling … lies in a man’s blood … in his racio-physical type, and in that alone … a man’s spiritual outlooks are primarily determined by his physical structure … For that reason we do not believe in spiritual assimilation. It is inconceivable, from the physical point of view, that a Jew born to a family of pure Jewish blood … can become adapted to the spiritual outlooks of a German or a Frenchman … He maybe wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish”“A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German custom, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-racial type are Jewish. ... It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. ... There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. ... An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. ... A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority”Jabotinsky stated in 1923, according to the book America And The Founding Of Israel, John W Mulhall (Author), p.90:"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement."Moving on to Arthur Ruppin :He headed the Jewish Agency between 1933 and 1935, ‘The Father of Jewish settlement in Palestine’ and helped to settle the large numbers of Jewish immigrants. (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Benny Morris)"This very likeness to the Asiatic peoples, from whom they have been separated for 2000 years, shows that the Jews have remained unchanged, and that in the Jews of today we may say we may have the same people who fought victoriously under King David, who repented their misdeeds under Ezra and Nehemiah, died fighting for freedom under Bar-Kokhba, were the great carriers of trade under between Europe and the Orient in the early Middle Ages….Thus the Jews have not only preserved their great natural racial gifts, but through a long process of selection these gifts have become strengthened. The terrible conditions under which the Jews lived during the last 500 years necessitated a bitter struggle for life in which only the cleverest and strongest survived… The result is that in the Jew of today, we have what is in some respects a particular valuable human type. Other nations may have other points of superiority, but in respect of intellectual gifts the Jews can scarcely be surpassed by any nation.” (The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand)“I do not believe in the TRANSFER of an individual. I believe in the TRANSFER of entire villages.” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Benny Morris)What ‘The Father’ had in mind? Arthur Ruppin (1876–1943), cultural identity, weltanschauung and action“Ruppin’s constant aspiration for racial purity in the Jews emerged from within the scientific and medical discourse which praised racial purity”Review of “My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel” by Ari ShavitIn Shavit’s words, the Arabs living there “are hardly noticeable to a Victorian gentleman,” who as a “white man of the Victorian era, cannot see non-whites as equals.” Shavit’s great-grandfather “does not see because he is motivated by the need not to see.” And in this respect, he was typical of the early Zionists. [Cf. also Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, by John B. Judis.] Shavit says that among the early Zionists only Israel Zangwill had a clear view of the Arab population of Palestine, and Zangwill asserted that the Zionists must “drive out by sword the tribes in possession, as our forefathers did.”Prior to 1948, few Zionists would have admitted to agreeing with Zangwill. At the same time, few of them would have looked on their Arab neighbors as equals. Shavit describes the early Zionists as living in a state of denial about the Arabs.Finally, one cannot claim that the Palestinians haven’t made pece offers as shown by leaked papers:Secret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace process“The offers were made in 2008-9, in the wake of George Bush's Annapolis conference, and were privately hailed by the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, as giving Israel "the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in history" in order to resolve the world's most intractable conflict. Israeli leaders, backed by the US government, said the offers were inadequate.”To summarize, the comparison with Apartheid is done via:Direct quotes from politiciansLegal structuresExternal expertsFeedback from key players in the South African modelPollsAcademic researchHistorical concepts based on race theoryHard evidence of offers of peace from the Palestinian side