"Rex [Tillerson]... hinted to me that the United States is expecting to strike a 'deal of the century,' which would resolve the Palestinian-Israeli problem in one swoop," Sergey Lavrov said. "We certainly want to understand how they see this happening."
...
Lavrov joined an international chorus of criticism over the move by the Trump administration. "The fact is that the statement [of recognition] goes against all the previous agreements," he said, adding that it divided global communities into two "very, very unequal parts." Israel is the only nation openly endorsing the move, but some US allies like Canada have refrained from criticizing it too loudly.

Lavrov, who was speaking to journalists in Vienna, said the Trump administration has shot itself in the foot with the decision, undermining their own Middle East strategy. "They previously said, let's normalize the relations between Washington and the Arab world, and once it is done, the Palestinian issue can be resolved," he said. "By taking the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem the Trump administration have undermined their effort to normalize the relations with the Arabs."

would endanger American diplomats serving in the region, undermine the administration's efforts to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and result in condemnations from both Arab countries and America's most important allies in Europe. Trump could expect almost no support in the international community, they said. America would "have to go it alone."

Trump, this official added, was actually anxious to make Wednesday's announcement because he was so encouraged by the progress made on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by Jared Kushner and his team. "I know a lot of that progress isn't visible," as this official was overheard saying to a prominent television reporter, "[but] it's partly because that progress is not visible that they've been able to make so much progress."

Domestically, it would seem Trump has little to worry about. The Democrats have spent the last 70 years (since 1948), fawning over Israel and defending it, while the Republicans' Christian Evangelical base is in full-throated support of the embassy move. Furthermore, the GOP has been desperate to break into what was once a Democrat - only monopoly on Jewish-American political funding-and Jewish votes. In this sense, Mr. Trump's Jerusalem announcement can be seen as a kind of coming out party - a celebration that the monopoly has been broken, that the Republicans have arrived. Then too, the bedrock of progressivism of American Jews (who supported any number of progressive movements over the last decades), has been overawed by concern that Israel can best be defended by backing pro-military conservative interventionists.

And so it is that President Trump's Jerusalem announcement might well be seen as a significant and decisive victory - for Israel, for the Republican Party, and for those Jewish Americans who have had to choose between their progressive ideals and their support for a nation that is anything but. The result is stark, discomforting. It may be that the controversy will fade, that the Arab world will remain quiet, that the Trump administration will use the Jerusalem decision as a springboard to launch a creative and fair resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That Jared Kushner will succeed where George Mitchell did not. But that doesn't seem likely.

• Russia's Middle East arms sales spike to record-high levels
• Bloomberg reports Turkey ready to splash out $2.5bn for Russia's S-400 air defense system

• Armageddon? World Reacts to Trump's Jerusalem Decision - Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah Warn of New Intifada
• Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital throws fresh embers on Middle East powder keg
• Palestine, Turkey and Jordan outraged at Trump's decision for US to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital (VIDEOS)
• 'Notice to Move' alert for US troops in Afghanistan after Jerusalem move- report
• The axis of Arab autocrats standing behind Trump who enabled the Jerusalem decision

1.) There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.

2.) For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the "counterintelligence" cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation.

3.) That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation.

[...]

Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges - and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.

[...]

The president may not be prosecuted in a criminal judicial proceeding for exercising his discretion, however objectionably, in executive matters over which the courts have no power of review. If Mueller tried to indict him, Trump would have unfettered discretion to fire Mueller and to direct the Justice Department to drop the case.

You may not like that, but that's the way it is. It is not, however, the end of the matter.

Any powers can be abused. When executive powers are abused, Congress retains the constitutional authority to impeach and remove the president. Obstruction of an FBI investigation may not be realistically prosecutable in court, but there is congressional precedent - in the Nixon and Clinton situations - for obstruction to be a "high crime and misdemeanor" triggering impeachment. Undoubtedly, abuse of the pardon power would also be an impeachable offense, even though it is not reviewable by the courts.

I continue to believe that this is the real danger for President Trump: A report by the special counsel, either through the grand jury or some other vehicle, concluding (a) that the president had obstructed the FBI's investigation of Flynn and of Trump-campaign collusion with Russia, and (b) recommending that the matter be referred to Congress for consideration of next steps, potentially including impeachment and removal.