Is Rope Being Dispensed By Democrat Leadership To A Few Black Members Calling For Trump's Impeachment? Will Comey Be Used To Impeachment Trump?

https://www.dailystormer.com/breaking-fbi-uncovers-evidence-that-62-million-trump-voters-are-all-russian-agents/

And

The Media and Democrat Party or Trump.  You decide:

https://drivegoogle.com/file/ d/0B- If58VBzEXfWEhGN2FjQ1pmYW40LVlH RHFJLVZBOEhYTlQ0/view?ts= 582b2629

++++++++++++++

Will he, won't he?  Stay tuned.  (See 1, 1a,and 1b below.)
==========
What Jack Welch predicted is happening, at least for the moment. Hysteria and fear is taking over a somewhat extended market.

Much of what Trump said in his commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy Graduation Ceremony was full of sound advice and worth listening to but his manner of delivery remains a turn-off. so content gets drowned by delivery.

Meanwhile several Black Democrat members of Congress, in my humble opinion, are being premature and overly vocal calling for Trump's impeachment. Possibly they are being used/encouraged by their party's leadership to fire up the troops. Also, perhaps these members are being manipulated and, in essence, being given rope which could eventually hang and embarrass them? There remains no visible and known evidence to call for/or justify impeachment but emotions often outrun brains and all too frequently in the nasty game of political infighting.

By allowing these few to stir the pot, are Democrat leaders hiding behind them while, encouraging them to do what the leadership surreptitiously seeks.

In the end, lamentably, the D.C swamp remains filled with those who put country last doing so under the cover of claiming they are being patriotic and are placing country first.

Furthermore, in the end, I suspect Putin wins because we might eventually learn Russia was successful at getting our mass media to swallow the red meat dangled in front of them regarding Russia's alleged manipulation of our recent election.

Ironically, in pursuit of Putin's alleged  manipulation of Trump, maybe Russia has successfully manipulated the mass media and Democrat Party because of their raging and unrestrained hunger to devour Trump, disrupt his agenda and emasculate his presidency.

On the other hand, Trump is not the usual disciplined president who reads from a teleprompter.  He is an unrestrained twitter man who is proving to be his own worst enemy and, in turn, is undercutting his communication department as well as his V.P..

Where all of this goes is anyone's guess but I would offer this final thought.

Comey , the mass media and Democrats could overplay their hand and turn off the average American voter who still feels the nation's interests come first and  must be placed above the narrow personal interests of politicians engaged in leaking, perpetuating outrageous conspiracy theories in order to lynch a president  etc. It could be Comey may turn out to be the best detractor Trump could have because he carries his own baggage.

If Trump has broken the law and is deservedly due to be punished, it will be based on facts that the vast majority will conclude are believable and then we will see where that ends.

Meanwhile, stay tuned, keep a level head and don't get sucked in by anti-Trump madness emanating from the mass media, the outrageous and fatuous assertions by partisan Democrats and the wimp out by weak knee Republicans.

Facts and truths are cleansing agents and none have been revealed that are bankable as of now. (See 2, 2a, and 2b below.)

Earlier this morning Speaker Ryan made some sober comments that will not be broadly noted because the news and passions remains elsewhere .  He pointed out Republicans were at work trying to move forward on some of the primary legislation Trump has proposed.  He went on to describe the need for legislation in a number of areas to make America more competitive so that those seeking work would have better opportunities and he concluded by offering a few personal comments about his desire and intent to let the facts be revealed so that legitimacy would drive the results not hysterical political bias and speculative media grandstanding.

I may not always agree with Ryan's approach but he remains one of the few adults in the room who is head and shoulders above an otherwise mass of petulant, immature, hysterical politicians and media folk parading as mature, knowledgeable and trustworthy opinion makers.

No wonder Ringling Brothers is on its last legs. There is no better circus than the one in D.C.

Stay tuned.
====
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) Trump Inauguration Rabbi Slams Administration’s Jerusalem Confusion, But Confident President Will Recognize City as Israel’s Capital During Visit

 by Ben Cohen

A prominent American rabbi who took part in President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January expressed sharp disappointment on Tuesday with the White House’s ongoing reluctance to clarify its position on Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem — but also stated he was confident the president himself would rectify the matter once he arrives in the Jewish state next Monday.

Rabbi Marvin Hier — the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) in Los Angeles — told The Algemeiner on Tuesday he believed that Trump, during his upcoming trip, would end the speculation over American policy regarding Jerusalem.

“Trump is not going to let it stand that the Kotel (Western Wall) is going to be under the sovereignty of another nation, or that it’ll be ‘internationalized,’ as the Vatican would like,” Hier said. “Those are unworkable suggestions that are never going to be agreed upon by the State of Israel. Trump has made it clear on so many occasions that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, so it would be quite a reversal for him to state differently on this occasion.”

Hier was speaking following a press briefing earlier on Tuesday by Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, in which he refused on two separate occasions to answer reporters’ questions on whether the US regards the Western Wall as part of Israel. McMaster merely stated that this was a “policy decision.”

Concern in Israel about the administration’s stance on Jerusalem has been intensifying over the past day, after reports emerged of a stand-up row between American and Israeli officials planning Trump’s visit, during which David Berns, the political counselor at the US Consulate in Jerusalem, is alleged to have shouted at his Israeli counterpart that the Western Wall was “part of the West Bank.” The White House clarified on Monday night that the comment did not reflect “the position of the administration.”

However, on Tuesday, McMaster also confirmed that “no Israeli leaders” would be joining the president on his much-heralded visit to the Western Wall — thereby reviving speculation that the White House does not want to give the impression that it recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the eastern parts of Jerusalem (including the Old City) that Israel took control of from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and which the Palestinians view as the capital of a future state.

“The notion that there is a question as to whom the Kotel belongs to is just preposterous,” Hier said. “This is an unnecessary blunder on the part of, firstly, low-level officials, and then McMaster. To leave open the suggestion that the sovereignty of the Kotel is attached to the West Bank is just mind-boggling to me.”

Hier restated his conviction that the policy confusion on Jerusalem would end soon after Trump lands in Israel. “When President Trump arrives in Israel, I don’t think there will be any doubt over who has title over the Kotel,” he said

.

Earlier on Tuesday, Israel’s Channel 2 reported a senior unnamed US official saying that despite ongoing reports that Trump no longer plans to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the move will eventually happen. “We’ll move the embassy, just give us time,” the official was quoted as saying.

1a)

Move the Embassy for America's Sake

Author: Aaron Menenberg   

” … In using the Jerusalem Embassy Act to move the American embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city, America would be making a profound statement that it recognizes the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and believes, based on all the evidence of history …  Such a move would restore America’s credibility as a moral leader and signal that it is not interested in cowing to illiberal falsehoods. … Put another way, the decision to move America’s embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Israeli sovereignty would be the decision of a great and reasonable country seeking a better world for all … “

Moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is mandated by law. Finally doing so would be a reflection of America’s core values. The new White House administration has promised to move the United States’ embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

This idea is controversial, not least because it is supported by Donald Trump. But the U.S. has had a law on its books for the last two decades that requires the government to do exactly what Trump is proposing. The reasons every president since Bill Clinton has waived the law are based on outdated and irrational arguments, which hold that, somehow, moving the embassy will cause a major international crisis.

While Trump may be a controversial leader, the motivation behind two-plus decades of overwhelming bipartisan support for moving the embassy are far from controversial. Indeed, they are based on what it means to be American: the classic liberal values of individual rights and freedoms that are enshrined in our way of life. The only un-American policy on Jerusalem is the one the United States has pursued for the last 69 years; a policy of consciously refusing to recognize that the only capital city in the Middle East and North Africa where classic liberalism thrives is Jerusalem.

The view that Jerusalem is Israel’s legitimate capital has been endorsed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress since the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, which Clinton signed into law. The House approved it by a vote of 374-37, and the Senate by 93-5. Fulfilling the requirements of the law should be undertaken for a simple yet powerful reason: it is a classic liberal act. Classic liberalism—liberalism with a lower case “l,” the kind practiced in America—is the belief that humans are individuals and as such have individual rights like self-determination and religious choice; in Thomas Jefferson’s words, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This belief is at America’s core, and for centuries Americans have recognized that it needs to be actively and vigilantly protected. It has not only become American law, but also Israeli law. Just as in the U.S., the Israeli government protects the individual’s rights and freedoms through representative government with limited powers. Recognizing the self-selected capital of a fellow liberal state would send a powerful message, especially as the liberal international order that American helped create in the 20th century shows signs of weakening. All one needs to do is cast an eye on the other capitals of the Middle East, where these values are absent, to understand what happens as a result.

America aims to do better for its own people, and much of its foreign policy has been centered around helping others across the globe achieve our freedoms and living standards. The Middle East and North Africa are home to the world’s majority of Arabs, Muslims, Jews, oil, and conflict, so they have long drawn the rest of the world into their orbit for a multitude of reasons, some well-intentioned and some not.

The Knesset, Israel's parliament. Photo: Itzik Edri / PikiWiki
The Knesset, Israel’s parliament. Photo: Itzik Edri / PikiWiki

One reason for American involvement has been the belief that if the region can achieve some form of liberalism, then the world will be a safer and more prosperous place. America has sent its military into the region several times over the past few decades while sending tens of billions of dollars in economic and political development. America’s nonprofits deploy far and wide across the region, providing everything from medical care to job training to micro-finance. All of this is done with the aim of achieving peace and stability so that people have a safe environment in which they can prosper through the means we know work best: liberal rights and freedoms.

Yet the only example of a free and prosperous country in the region is Israel, which has received very little foreign development aid and non-profit involvement compared to its more troubled neighbors. It is the only country in the Middle East—and one of the few globally—to know nothing but democracy since its very first day of existence. It is also one of the few countries in the region where Americans have not had to intervene militarily. Israel is, whether people want to see it that way or not, a beacon of liberty because it is the only living and breathing example of freedom in the region.

If Americans are genuine in their desire to support liberal freedoms, then they must use Israel as an example, and for those who hesitate at pursuing the goal of freedom because of America’s recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the case of Jerusalem is the perfect antidote, because it has not required any American military action. Recognizing that Jerusalem under Israeli control is a city that has successfully weathered the region’s conflicts and provides the only model of a successful liberal, democratic, multicultural, and free Middle Eastern capital is a potent message that is easy to deliver.

Today’s Jerusalem is a successful if imperfect model of a liberal city with a diverse population and a flourishing multicultural identity. Jerusalem has not only some of the world’s most significant religious sites, but also a thriving society with world-class artistic, culinary, cultural, and educational achievements. This is a very new development in the history of the city. After all, it has changed hands 44 times over 118 conflicts that resulted in 11 transfers of religious authority over 4,000 years, according to the Archeological Institute of America. In order for today’s Jerusalem to come into existence, a key challenge had to be solved: coexistence.

Coexistence in the city is by no means perfect. Tension continues with occasional violent outbursts, like the so-called “stabbing intifada” of 2015-2016, and demolition of houses that fail to meet city permitting or building standards, most of which are occupied by Arabs. However, the Israeli government persists in its efforts to create as much equality and prosperity for the city’s citizens as it can despite the reality that some of them support its overthrow. This practice is not only unique in the region, but also limited to representative governments subject to popular elections—in other words, the kinds of countries that make the world a better place to live.

This is why a 2015 poll by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion in the West Bank found that 52 percent of Palestinians living in eastern Jerusalem said they would prefer to remain there as citizens of Israel over becoming citizens of a Palestinian state. In 2011 the same survey found the number preferring Israeli to Palestinian citizenship was 40 percent; a year before it was only one-third. In other words, Palestinians experiencing the rights and freedoms of Israeli liberalism are increasingly uninterested in giving them up, even though their international supporters and diplomatic representatives claim otherwise.

One powerful argument for Israel remaining in control of Jerusalem’s religious sites, which would be undone if Palestinians took control of eastern Jerusalem, is that the Palestinian Authority has an abhorrent record of protecting religious minorities (it is illegal there to convert from Islam to Christianity). Christians living in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank are fleeing: Christians made up 10 percent of the Palestinian territories in 1920, but were just one percent in 2010. In Bethlehem, their population has reduced from over half in 1990 to just 15 percent today. The life of religious minorities in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority is deplorable, which makes the idea that the same government could govern the areas containing Christianity and Judaism’s holiest sites and and maintain freedom of religion (not to mention freedom of access) outrageously contradicted by reality.

In contrast, the Christian population has been steadily rising inside Israel for decades, in no small part due to the freedom to worship that has been at the center of the Zionist movement since the beginning. The Jewish experience as a persecuted religious minority was one of the essential pillars of the project of building modern Israel. Jews fleeing persecution began returning to biblical Palestine, where they constituted the majority population by 1863, according to British consular records, contrary to the myth that Israel was born out of the Jewish flight from Nazism. Jews from around the world flooded biblical Palestine in the hope that restoring their ancestral homeland to Jewish self-government would save them from the second-class status, religious persecution, and anti-Semitic oppression they were suffering in all corners of the world.

Excavations in the City of David, Jerusalem. Photo: Hanay / Wikimedia
Excavations in the City of David, Jerusalem. Photo: Hanay / Wikimedia

The reason Jews looked to biblical Palestine was the intimate connection between Jews and the land that extends back to pre-biblical times. The City of David Foundation has catalogued various archeological findings that demonstrate this connection, going as far back as the 1st century BCE: the Pool of Siloam, a ritual bath for Jewish pilgrims ascending to the Temple Mount, which is the size of two modern day Olympic pools; the pilgrimage road that worshipers took from Siloam to the Second Temple; a silver coin with the words “Holy Jerusalem” in Hebrew on one side and “half shekel” on the other. This coin and its location comport with a section of the Talmud that says every Jew was obligated to contribute a half shekel annually towards the Temple’s upkeep. One of the most exciting recent archaeological finds is Jerusalem was the Tel Dan inscription, a piece of writing on a 9th century BCE stone slab that furnished the first historical evidence of King David. The inscription was discovered in 1993 and explicitly refers to the “House of David” in Hebrew.

While this evidence takes nothing away from other religions’ connection to Jerusalem, it demonstrates that the Jewish connection began centuries before Christianity and Islam came into existence, let alone planted roots in the city. This archeological evidence is fundamental to Jewish and Israeli identity today. This is a crucial point for Americans, because we often view the Israeli-Arab conflict as a dispute over self-determination in which we see the rights of both sides to their own countries on their own terms. Since Jewish and Israeli identity has at its core an ancient connection to the land of Israel and its capital Jerusalem, an American decision to place its embassy in western Jerusalem respects Israel’s self-determination without sacrificing that of the Palestinians, who claim to want only eastern Jerusalem as their capital.

In building the State of Israel, Jews were and continue to be motivated by their collective history of religious oppression. They sought to live in peace with their neighbors, knowing that only by governing themselves would they secure their right to the “pursuit of happiness.” As a result, the founders of the State of Israel pledged in their declaration of independence that all religions would be practiced freely in their new country. That right has remained a consistent part of the country’s core values.

The closest that America has come to recognizing this reality is the aforementioned Jerusalem Embassy Act. The bill recognizes Judaism’s eternal connection to Jerusalem and the liberal values Israel has instituted in the city, and acknowledges that for the sake of all people, especially religious minorities, Israel should have sovereignty over the city. The law’s findings state that “since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city … [during which time] the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.” The law requires the U.S. government to relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and calls for America to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and support its unification as one city under Israeli sovereignty by the end of May 1999. Support for the Act has remained strong, with numerous bipartisan Congressional statements, resolutions, and bills, as well as a regular Jerusalem Day event, all of which aim to convince successive presidents to fulfill the Act’s obligations.

The outpouring of bipartisan support for the Jerusalem Embassy Act came despite the supposed diplomatic challenges it posed for the White House, which many argue remain reason enough for Trump to avoid implementing it. Since the founding of Israel, the United States has refrained from recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and accepting Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The bitter dispute over who will rule the city has yet to be decided, and it was American policy that only the two parties to the conflict can reach an agreement on the issue through bilateral negotiations. Therefore, any action by the U.S. regarding Jerusalem would “prejudge” the outcome of those negotiations. The Jerusalem Embassy Act, went the argument, was therefore in conflict with long-standing U.S. policy.

Opponents of the bill also argued at the time that it was unconstitutional. Recognition of foreign sovereignty by the U.S. government is a responsibility that the Constitution tasked exclusively to the executive branch, and it was argued that Congress was breaking constitutional limits on its power by forcing the executive to recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Therefore, in order to win over the White House and secure enough votes for passage, the bill’s authors included a mechanism called the Presidential Waiver Authority.

This meant that the president could postpone implementation by six months if he wrote to Congress certifying that doing so was in the national security interests of the United States. Every president since then has done this, so Jerusalem is considered an island unto itself by the U.S. government, a city without a country. Americans born in Jerusalem have the city’s name written on their passports as their place of birth without any mention of a parent country, while the U.S. embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

Little headway has been made in establishing a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or even settling many of the intermediate challenges, since 1995. An American embassy move may, however, break the stalemate. The argument being made right now by the Palestinian Authority and several other Arab governments is that an American embassy relocation to even western Jerusalem would make peace impossible. But this is only true if the Palestinian Authority and those Arab governments actually oppose the two-state solution, because it is premised on a divided Jerusalem with the western portion under Israeli sovereignty. Therefore, a negative reaction to a U.S. embassy located in western Jerusalem is a sign that the Arab side is not serious about accepting a cornerstone of the peace process, and therefore suggests that the United States’ decades-long support for diplomacy may be misplaced because the Arab side does not intend to follow through on it.

The continuation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act waiver usage for the past 21 years has been a similar exercise in poor critical thinking and the victory of stubborn hope over educated reason. It has been based on four mistaken assumptions.

The first assumption is that American recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem creates a new “fact on the ground,” which it does not. American recognition is just that; it would not force the Palestinians or any other country to recognize it themselves. Nor would an American embassy in western Jerusalem create a city that is more united or divided than it is right now.

The second is that Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem means that it becomes a purely “Jewish” city. But Jerusalem has been a city open to all nations and faiths only when under Israeli control. It is, moreover, a city that hosts an Israeli government that includes a sizeable and influential bloc of democratically elected Arab parliamentarians, as well as an Arab justice on the Supreme Court who oversaw the 2014 national elections. An American embassy in western Jerusalem would not define the city as “Jewish” or “Arab,” nor would it force non-Jews out of the city in any way.

The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem represents American interests in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. Photo: Magister / Wikimedia
The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem represents American interests in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. Photo: Magister / Wikimedia

The third is that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the city prejudges its status in future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. This mistaken assumption is based on the faulty premise that America’s opinion of Jerusalem determines those of the Israelis and Palestinians. It does not. America gets to make its own decisions based on its own concerns, as do the parties to the conflict.

In fact, the U.S. has already made a decision regarding Jerusalem that the Palestinians reject: western Jerusalem, at a minimum, is considered an Israeli city. For years, a State Department rule has held that its officials can be taken anywhere in Israel by Israeli officials, including western Jerusalem, though they cannot be taken to eastern Jerusalem. This constitutes de facto U.S. recognition that western Jerusalem is part of Israel. Locating a U.S. embassy there neither contradicts this policy nor poses a barrier to a two-state solution in which eastern Jerusalem becomes the capital of a Palestinian state.

The forth is that the security of a Jerusalem embassy cannot be reasonably assured. This appears absurd when one considers other cities where America has long had embassies. The U.S. is undeterred by the constant threats and all-too-frequent attacks on its embassies in Riyadh, Baghdad, and Kabul, all of which are built like fortresses. Our embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, where coordinated attacks in 1998 killed 234 people, remain in those cities. When an angry crowd burned the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in 1979, we did not relocate the new one. Neither did we move our Beirut embassy to another city in Lebanon after a 1983 attack killed 63 people. And, of course, we operated and continue to operate an embassy in Benghazi, Libya, despite the notorious attack that killed our ambassador and several others in 2012. The United States has a long and solid record of keeping embassies where they belong—in capital cities—in spite of security threats.

In using the Jerusalem Embassy Act to move the American embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city, America would be making a profound statement that it recognizes the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and believes, based on all the evidence of history, that the world is a better place when the liberal values embraced by Israel govern the city. Such a move would restore America’s credibility as a moral leader and signal that it is not interested in cowing to illiberal falsehoods. Put another way, the decision to move America’s embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Israeli sovereignty would be the decision of a great and reasonable country seeking a better world for all.

1b) Move The Embassy

 Jpost Editorial   

By taking a stand on an issue that clearly holds great emotional and symbolic significance for a great many Israelis, Trump would be implementing a huge confidence-boosting measure. As he arrives next week for his first visit as president to Israel, just a day before the country marks 50 years since the reunification of Jerusalem, Trump has a rare opportunity to change the course of the future for the people of the region.

Election promises have been broken probably dating back to ancient Greece when candidates pledged to eager voters to build more bathhouses, only to later discover that other priorities or political considerations rendered the plans unfeasible or imprudent.

During his campaign last year, US President Donald Trump endeared himself to many Israelis by vowing to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, something that none of his predecessors had any interest or willingness to do. That stance, combined with Trump’s unparalleled alignment during the campaign with the views of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government regarding the peace process with the Palestinians, imbued a sense of euphoria among the most right-leaning MKs and ministers that the Trump era would feature unprecedented coordination between the US and Israel regarding the future direction of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

However, since his January inauguration, Trump has proven to be a more savvy politician in his foreign policy than in his shambolic domestic agenda. Through his willingness to act against Syria’s regime, Afghanistan and North Korea, the new president has thrust the US back into the forefront of the international scene, following eight years of president Barack Obama’s leading from behind policy.

He has also demonstrated that, despite his over-thetop campaign rhetoric, he’s not going to roll over and be Netanyahu’s poodle by offering a blank check to Israel for settlement expansion. Regarding the embassy move, Trump invoked his Greek moment by repeatedly hedging on his enthusiastic pre-election pledge.

His secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, was the latest administration official that doused the flames of the eventuality of the embassy being moved to Jerusalem, telling a US interviewer that the decision “will be informed by the parties involved in those talks – and most certainly Israel’s view – and whether Israel views it as helpful to a peace initiative or perhaps a distraction.”

“[Trump] wants to put a lot of effort into seeing if we cannot advance a peace initiative between Israel and Palestine,” Tillerson continued. “And so, I think in large measure, the president is being very careful to understand how such a decision would impact a peace process.”

According to reports in the Israeli media, American magnate Sheldon Adelson, a big supporter of Trump during the campaign, was incensed by Tillerson’s comments. And it’s likely that his good friend Netanyahu was not too happy either. The prime minister quickly issued a statement explaining why moving the embassy to Jerusalem wouldn’t harm the peace process.

“It will correct a historic injustice by advancing the [peace process] and shattering a Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem isn’t Israel’s capital,” Netanyahu said.

Moving the US Embassy would certainly have the effect, but it would influence the Israeli people in a much more profound manner. By taking a stand on an issue that clearly holds great emotional and symbolic significance for a great many Israelis, Trump would be implementing a huge confidence-boosting measure – one that would possibly enable the Israeli people to put some trust in his ability bring the two sides together and allow them to get behind a peace push that would require future, likely painful, concessions.

And despite Netanyahu’s reasoning, the act of moving the embassy would not preclude, at the end of successful future negotiations, a declaration of Jerusalem also being the capital of a Palestinian state.

As he arrives next week for his first visit as president to Israel, just a day before the country marks 50 years since the reunification of Jerusalem, Trump has a rare opportunity to change the course of the future for the people of the region.

A 1995 congressional law mandates that the US Embassy be situated in Jerusalem. US presidents have signed waivers to the law every six months since its passage, delaying its implementation. Instead of continuing that tradition at the end of May, Trump can declare in a loud voice from the top of Masada next week that the US Embassy is going to move to Jerusalem. It could be his most presidential act yet.

1c) So You Want to Move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem? Here's How …

 Author(: FORMER AMB. ) Daniel Shapiro  

Daniel Shapiro Former Ambassador of the United States of America to the State of Israel:

It never failed. In five years serving as U.S. ambassador to Israel, whenever I spoke before an Israeli audience, the first or second question was always: “When will the United States move its embassy to Jerusalem?”

My answer invariably wove through Jerusalem’s unique history and American interests in the two-state solution. It culminated in Congress’s 1995 passage of legislation requiring the transfer of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — but only after the inclusion of a waiver authority permitting the president to delay the move for six months at a time, if he determined it was in the U.S. national security interest. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama exercised the waiver like clockwork, citing the need to prevent damage to ongoing efforts to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I supported all three presidents’ use of their national security waiver authority to delay the move in the interest of pursuing Middle East peace. But I have never believed that arguments for moving the embassy were groundless, or that it must await a final Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. I’m influenced by my love of Jerusalem — an emotional attachment born of decades studying its history — and sense of justice for Jewish claims to the city that are far too often called into question. The presence of a U.S. Embassy in parts of Jerusalem no one disputes are Israeli territory is one way of acknowledging the centuries of history that link the Jewish people to the city, the questioning of which is closely linked to the denial of Israel’s very legitimacy.

There are also practical diplomatic reasons for such a move. As ambassador, I was obliged to travel to Jerusalem several times a week to engage with Israeli officials in their offices.

But if President Donald Trump’s administration is determined to go forward with this move, the question of how it is executed will be critical. Done carefully, it could advance American national goals and interests. Done carelessly, it could cause them grave harm and lead to preventable tragedy.

The fact that the Trump administration has not immediately announced its intention to move the embassy, defying some predictions, suggests it is approaching the question carefully. This is a welcome contrast to numerous off-the-cuff policy pronouncements, from China to Mexico to refugee and immigration policy. If it wants to continue this approach, it should apply the following principles:

Preserve a realistic prospect for a two-state solution. Previous administrations’ opposition to moving the embassy was never about hostility to Israel or delegitimizing Israeli claims or the historic Jewish connection to the city. The opposition was always about preserving the chance to achieve the goal of a negotiated two-state solution. The fear was that a unilateral American move could ignite massive protests and spark retaliatory measures by Palestinians or Arab states, wrecking the chance of progress in negotiations.

Since I agree that achieving a two-state solution remains a critical U.S. foreign-policy interest, moving the embassy should be derivative of, or at least consistent with, that strategic policy goal.

Whether motivated by the importance of preserving Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, a concern for Israel’s and America’s relationships with key Arab partners, or a desire to cut “the ultimate deal,” the new administration shows signs of investing heavily in Middle East peace negotiations. The president has even assigned his own son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a potential peacemaker.

So an embassy move must demonstrate that it will not prevent a Palestinian capital in the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem from emerging through negotiations — a necessary element of any final status deal — or change the status quo at the city’s holy sites. U.S. statements should make explicit that our embassy’s presence in West Jerusalem — likely housed initially in one of our existing consulate facilities — is not an endorsement of Israel’s claim of sovereignty over the entire city. Additional statements making clear the U.S. commitment to the status quo of the holy sites can assuage both Muslim sensitivities about the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) and Jewish sensitivities about the Western Wall.

Both Israelis and Palestinians may not welcome every aspect of such statements, but we should be honest with them. Done properly, such a move could actually advance the prospects for a two-state solution by shattering self-defeating myths on both sides.
Consult with key allies and neighbors. Before moving the embassy, the new administration should begin a conversation with the PalestiniansBefore moving the embassy, the new administration should begin a conversation with the Palestinians, who jealously guard their claims to Jerusalem. Add the Jordanians, whose King Abdullah has a special role, acknowledged by Israel, in safeguarding the city’s Muslim holy sites. Continue with the Saudis, whose legitimacy is tied to their leadership of Islam’s holiest sites, and the Egyptians, who will be key players in any effort to resolve, or even manage, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Ask how an embassy move will affect them. How severe will the popular blowback be? What steps can help mitigate it? Each of these leaders will express opposition to the move, and some may threaten diplomatic retaliation, as the Palestinians have. But each also wants to get off on the right foot with the Trump administration, and several have common strategic interests with Israel. None of them should learn about the decision from the media or a White House announcement. Prior consultation, while not ensuring a quiet response, shows respect, may dampen the blowback, and can inform the administration’s decision on when and how to announce and execute the move.

Watch out for the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War. In May and June, history will meet politics and emotion as the world marks five decades since Israel captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank in a war of self-defense. Israeli officials and citizens will celebrate the reunification of Jerusalem with oratory and pageantry. But Palestinians and much of the rest of the world — and some Israelis as well — will mark a half century of a seemingly entrenched occupation, which seems unlikely to give way to a two-state solution.

Although the current waiver expires on June 1, tying the move of our embassy to these events would be highly provocative. It would seem to link our decision to the Israeli claim to the entire city, risking blowback among Palestinians and in the Arab world. It would drag the United States into a historical argument that is not ours, and undercut our interests by making us a target of 50-year protests.

Plan it properly. One proposal for the move suggests merely hanging a sign on a Jerusalem consulate facility declaring it the embassy, and carving out some work space for the ambassador and a few staff. But that absurdly minimizes the complexity of the task. But that absurdly minimizes the complexity of the task. The embassy in Tel Aviv employs some 800 Americans and Israelis, spread across seven locations.The embassy in Tel Aviv employs some 800 Americans and Israelis, spread across seven locations.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem means moving much of those staff, and building the facilities required for them to do their work. It will require not just the construction of a new embassy building of the required size and security standards, but finding new housing for embassy diplomats, providing schooling for their children who currently attend a school north of Tel Aviv, addressing attrition of local staff who will not make the move, and ensuring no degradation of the embassy’s top-notch security standards.

A conservative estimate is that it will take a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars for such work. In the interim, the current inefficiencies of U.S. diplomats traveling regularly to Jerusalem would be magnified. The ambassador would be separated from the bulk of his or her staff, making coordination, management, and consistency of message more difficult. And the ambassador will need to visit Tel Aviv regularly to engage with leading Israeli economic and security institutions based there.

It will be even more complicated to ensure that the United States maintains its ability to conduct diplomacy with the Palestinian Authority. These discussions are managed by our consulate general in Jerusalem, an independent mission whose diplomats travel regularly to Ramallah. Will the consulate be subsumed under the embassy?

If so, it is unlikely that Palestinian officials will deal with them. They will aim to avoid any suggestion of a downgrade in their ambitions for sovereignty by addressing the U.S. government only through diplomats accredited to Israel. Without viable channels of communication with both sides, U.S. chances of leading successful negotiations shrink to nil. Can the consulate remain independent in the same city as the embassy? This arrangement may require waivers of existing law and policy.

There are potential answers to all of these questions, and a proper planning and budgeting process should commence to deal with them — not treat the initial announcement as the end of the story.

Be honest about the risks. The United States should never be intimidated from pursuing its interests by the threat of violence. And I have no doubt that Israeli security services can effectively protect the embassy, wherever it is. But we also should not pretend that the risk of violence does not exist. Jerusalem has often been the site, and the spark, of violent upheavals, especially when the holy sites are at issue.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presided over one such crisis in 1996 when his government opened an entrance to an archaeological tunnel near the Haram al-Sharif. The last two years have witnessed a wave of stabbings and car rammings inspired by largely false claims that Israel threatened the status quo of the Muslim holy sites. An embassy move could be seized upon by Jewish activists who, against their government’s policy, are advocating for Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, a radical change in the status quo. That, in turn, could contribute to an even wider explosion of violence in other Muslim countries, possibly threatening U.S. diplomatic missions and personnel.

Terror and violence can never be justified, but any significant policy change should be accompanied by a professional assessment about the risks of violence and the ability to contain it. Lives may well be at stake if an embassy move is handled cavalierly, and it is simply denial to say otherwise.

For nearly seven decades, the United States and the international community have avoided declaring a view on Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its capital. In such a sensitive area, caution is understandable. No one wants to trigger violence or sabotage the chances for a negotiated peace. But if Trump wants to change this long-standing approach, he should pursue it with care — mindful of the risks and the need to mitigate them, realistic about the challenges and need to plan for them, and savvy about using the move to advance American interests.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)  Jack Welch: Trump Impeachment Would 'Blow the Market Away'

Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch told CNBC on Wednesday that an impeachment of President Donald Trump would "blow the market away."

US stock futures pointed to a lower opening Wednesday amid investor concern that Trump's reform agenda could be slowed down, added to disappointing U.S. economic data on Wednesday to hit the dollar and spur a pullback from richly valued stocks, Reuters reported.

Reports that Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to end a probe into his former national security adviser have raised questions over whether obstruction of justice charges could be filed against the president.

This follows a week of turmoil at the White House after Trump fired Comey and then discussed sensitive national security information about Islamic State with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Meanwhile, Trump's firing of James Comey as FBI director was a "rookie mistake," Welch told CNBC.

Welch told CNBC that he graded Trump a "D-minus" on his management of the White House.

Since Trump was so glowing in his praise when he kept the Obama-holdover Comey on after he took office, Trump should have "loved him on the way out" as much as he "loved him on the way in,"  said Welch, a longtime Republican supporter.

On the policy front and in his Cabinet and Supreme Court pick, Welch said he would give Trump an "A."

So far, broadly upbeat global growth has underpinned risky assets and supported the multi-year lows in measures of market volatility.

But the retreat in the dollar, which has now given up all the gains it made following Trump's presidential election win in November, and a pullback from record highs for world stocks points to investor unease about this week's headlines.

"The Trump issue seems to come in waves, and now we have another wave," said Hans Peterson, global head of asset allocation, at SEB Investments.

"I have been asked if he is going to be impeached. I think that is the type of discussion some (investors) are having," Peterson said, pointing out that institutional clients are turning cautious.

Newsmax Finance Insider Hans Parisis has wondered what investor reaction will be to the president's apparent recent policy reversals. "It's not an overstatement for me to say that as far as Donald Trump’s policies are concerned, we witnessed a breathtaking “flip-flop” performance," Parisis wrote in his exclusive Newsmax Finance commentary.

"This is worrisome for investors because it casts doubt on the actual process about just how Trump and team crafts overall policy," Parisis explained. "To me, Trump's decision-making process seems to be almost random," Parisis wrote.

"I think one of the big questions for financial markets and for long-term investors is: How do you handle these uncertainties about policy decisions? How do you cope and prepare as an investor amid this uncertainty? What happens if and when the next policy shock occurs?"

Meanwhile, some of the most respected economic gurus of modern times have urged patience with Trump.

Veteran financial guru and former Ronald Reagan adviser Larry Kudlow is urging any impatient investors to just give Trump a chance to fully enact his strategies to reform healthcare, spark economic growth and redesign the tax system.

After all, Trump has been in office a relatively short time and has inherited a mountain of problems from the past two decades. “He's trying to fix a lot of problems that have gone unfixed in the last 20 years,” Kudlow explained to CNBC.

Trump “still wants tax reform and healthcare reform. Those are big issues for him.” the Newsmax Finance Insider said.

Many other respected economic voices predict robust growth and additional stock-market gains if Trump is allowed to fully enact his blueprint to truly "Make America Great Again" without interruption and sabotage from Democrats and the liberal press.

David Horowitz, author of the best-selling book "Big Agenda: President Trump's Plan to Save America," told Newsmax TV that the stock market rally since Trump won the election has more room for gains as the president pushes his pro-business agenda.

“There's more upside. Starting from when he was president-elect he started this stock market boom,” he told Newsmax TV's “The Income Generation Show.”

“There will be corrections. There are going to be setbacks along the way like the healthcare which they hurried too fast. If you're looking over the long term of this administration I think the stock market is going to love Trump,” Horowitz said.

(Newsmax wires services contributed to this report).

2a) Alan Dershowitz on Comey's Memo: 'Tone Is Everything'

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday that former FBI Director James Comey's memo on his February conversation with President Donald Trump "has to be seen" because "tone is everything."

"For a president – and tone is everything – that's why the memo has to be seen and that's why, if there are tapes, we should hear them," Dershowitz told Anderson Cooper on CNN.

"If the president politely suggests to the director of the FBI: 'He's a good guy, [Michael] Flynn. I would appreciate if you let him off the hook. I fired him.'

"That doesn't become" a case of obstruction of justice," he said.

The New York Times reported that Comey wrote the memo shortly after a Feb. 14 meeting with Trump, which came a day after Flynn resigned as national security adviser.

The president had fired Flynn amid questions about his disclosures of his Russian contacts to Vice President Mike Pence.

"I hope you can let this go," Trump told Comey, according to the memo, the Times reported. The newspaper said an unnamed associate of Comey read parts of the memo to a Times reporter.

"He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."

However, Dershowitz said legal precedent favors Trump as commander-in-chief.

"When it's the president of the United States, and we have separation of powers, the courts are going to resolve these issues in favor of the president, if what he did was lawful.

"If he destroyed tapes. If he refused to comply with a subpoena, that's one thing," he told Cooper. "But there's going to be erring on the side of presidential power and presidential authority."

He also doubted whether Trump had tapes of any discussions with Comey.

"I don't think the White House is stupid enough to create a credibility contest with Comey," Dershowtiz said. "Comey's telling the truth here.

"There's no doubt about that.

"But if there's no tapes, the president would not have created this credibility dispute."

2b) The Comey Memo

By Matt Wilson

A message from Mike Huckabee:  This is a guest blog post from Matt Wilson.  Matt is a brilliant attorney who once worked for me. He has powerful questions the NY Times ought to ask. Please read.

The New York Times is reporting tonight that President Trump asked former Director Comey to stop the Flynn investigation.

In effect, the Times, based solely upon the word of James Comey, is insinuating, if not directly stating, that the President obstructed justice.

I have serious questions about James Comey's credibility in this regard.

18 USC § 4 reads: "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

This is called misprision of a felony.

Concealing knowledge of a felony and failure to report is, itself, a felony.

First, if the former FBI director was taking notes of meetings where the President had allegedly told him to drop a criminal investigation (i.e., to obstruct justice), then why did Comey wait until now to reveal this? In fact, by keeping his notes private until now, he was concealing them. Right? (That is the first element of misprision -- concealment.)

Second, if Comey did not reveal this information "as soon as possible ... to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States," then that means only one of two things ---

(A) Comey did not think the President had committed any crime, or

(B) Comey was committing a crime, himself, (i.e. misprision of a felony) in order to have something to hold over the President.

On the other hand, if he did, in fact, reveal this to a judge, or to the Attorney General, or to any other person in authority, then by revealing this information to the press, Comey may be impeding an active investigation.

So if these memos actually do exist, this does not look good for Comey. Which makes me wonder if they do, in fact, exist.

If I were Comey, I would certainly lawyer up and plead the 5th if he is called to testify before Congress.

+++++++++++++++++++