Dictums, Rug Out From Under and New Enterprise! Rest In Peace!

===

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4788291323001/judge-jeanine-mitt-romney-awoke-a-sleeping-giant/?playlist_id=937116552001#sp=show-clips

===
More dictums:

“All forms of government destroy themselves by carrying their basic principles to excess—The democracies become too free in politics and economics, in morals, even in art and literature, until at last even the puppy dogs in our homes rise up on their hind legs and demand their rights. Disorder grows to such a point that a society will abandon all its liberty to anyone who can restore order.” -

                              Plato - approximately 400 B.C.

**********************************************************************************

The experience of the past leaves little doubt that every economic system must sooner or later rely upon some form of the profit motive to stir individuals and groups to productivity. The first biological lesson of history is that life is competition. Competition is not only the life of trade it is the trade of life.

         From "The Lessons of History"- Will and Auriel Durant
===
Should Israel have to fight Hamas their new battle plans are designed to make it a quick one. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-back-whittles-new-firewall-video-most-shameful-injustice
===
More threats. Times pulls the rug out from under.(See 2 below.)
===
An analysis of the recent Iranian election.

I served on The Wilson Center's Board for a brief while.  It was established and partly funded by Congress and is non-partisan. (See 3 below.)
===
My oldest daughter - an authoress - and her husband have begun an interesting enterprise. (See 4 below.)
===
In some ways I believe Nancy Reagan was an older version of Jackie Kennedy.  Both were elegant, both revered The White House and did everything they could to preserve its beauty.

I suspect if Ms. Reagan was listening to the current  debates, and though she lived a long and fruitful life, they might have caused her to die a bit early.

May she rest in peace beside her hero. (See 5 below.)

and

Then we have the ongoing story of another wife who occupied The White House. (See 5a below.)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

Analysis: Israel's next war with Hezbollah will be swift and decisive By ALON BEN-DAVID Hezbollah has the capability to rain thousands of rockets and missiles on Israel in one day.

Last week, locals gathered in the northern town of Shlomi for a special event paying tribute to the 300th Brigade, the military unit that for the past 42 years has kept the western part of the northern border with Lebanon secure. One by one, retired commanders took to the microphone and regaled the young soldiers with tales, running down the history of the area and the events that no one will ever forget – the Avivim school bus massacre, the Ma'alot school massacre, the Coastal Highway attack, the murder of members of the Haran family in Nahariya, and other scars that have been etched into the landscape of the scenic western Galilee. The sense was that Israeli inhabitants of the north were being forced to pay a price for their decision to settle there. It wasn't always like this. Since the War of Independence all the way until the 1970s, Lebanon was the least threatening neighbor, the tranquil country to our north. The joke during that time was that if war broke out, the IDF would conquer Syria, while the IDF Philharmonic would conquer Lebanon. Since 1970, however, the year in which Palestinian terrorist organizations were evicted from Jordan and relocated to Lebanon, the Land of the Cedars has turned from harmless neighbor to terror haven. Today, it is home to the most significant military threat facing Israel. There are those who say that Hezbollah is analogous to a small kitten that would often scratch you a bit – no more – but slowly, gradually grew to become a predator tiger. The organization today boasts 41,000 fighters in both conscripts and the reserves. Many of them have gained combat experience in Syria. Hezbollah also has more firepower at its disposal than 95% of regular militaries in the world. Many of us err when we refer to it as "a terrorist organization." From a moral standpoint, it is, but from a professional point of view, this is an inaccurate characterization. Indeed, Hezbollah has the capability to rain thousands of rockets and missiles on Israel in one day. It can also dispatch enough ground forces to capture towns adjacent to the border fence, making it an army in every sense of the word. These words are not intended to sow fear. The odds of Hezbollah actualizing this capability and embarking on war against Israel are low. The organization is stretched thin from a strategic standpoint, so thin that it simply cannot afford to even play with fire, let alone initiate hostilities against us.   This past decade was the quietest ever in the Galilee, certainly in the last 40 years. It is becoming more apparent that the Syrian civil war will not end soon, which means that Hezbollah can ill afford the luxury of starting trouble in the north. In hindsight, the Second Lebanon War looks different. Time has not dulled the seriousness of the failures that were exposed at the time, including the rudderless political and military leadership. Nonetheless, the war did bring unprecedented quiet to the north. Never has deterrence against Hezbollah been more effective. A decade later, Hezbollah is indeed much stronger than it ever was, but it also has very little appetite – at least for the time being – for another war with Israel, especially one that will bring destruction upon Lebanon. Hezbollah continues to arm itself and grow stronger, and many wonder if attack tunnels are being built underneath us in the north just as they are in Gaza. The answer apparently is no, but this is not so comforting. The meandering border that separates Israel and Lebanon makes a tunnel superfluous and unnecessary.  It would not be unreasonable to assume that Hezbollah has the capability to move a battalion of fighters into Israel through the thick shrubbery along the frontier – without anyone noticing. That is what the IDF is referring to when it talks about "2,500 above-ground tunnels" made possible by the tortuous, winding, flora-covered boundary that offers cover for Hezbollah. While retired commanders told of how the military dealt with border infiltrations during the years in which there was no border fence, today the IDF is not making do with a fence and deterrent measures. Instead, it is making physical and geological changes to the landscape, undertaking a massive engineering project aimed at carving new cliffs near border towns that will make it harder for Hezbollah to spring a surprise. The IDF has also calibrated it war plans, ripping up its previous blueprint of trying to suppress rocket fire by fruitlessly chasing after rocket-launchers. Instead, the IDF has prepared plans that are aimed at bringing a war in the north to a quick, decisive end. In the spirit of Ofer Shelah's spot-on book, Ha'ometz l'natzeach ("the courage to win"), the IDF is no longer satisfied with merely relying on the binary model – one which holds the option of either conquering all of the territory or waging a long, protracted war of attrition along the border. In the spectrum which separates these two options, the army says it has found methods and actions that are supposed to bring a quick end to the fighting – this time with a result much more in our favor. Gabi Ashkenazi, the former chief of staff, often told his charges that in the next war it is forbidden to ask who won. This is the same spirit behind the plans drawn up by his successor, Gadi Eisenkot. The word "victory" doesn't appear there, but they do prescribe the need to register "a ringing achievement," one that reverberates long after the fact, so much so that it would not begin the countdown to the next round of fighting. The IDF high command is preparing a number of surprises for Hezbollah. The next war will be a tough, painful one, and the hope is it won't come to pass. But if it does, it is supposed to end differently than the most recent ones. james caplan

1a). Russia reportedly suspended the transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran after Israeli intelligence tipped off Moscow that Tehran broke a pledge not to transfer sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah. A senior source told the newspaper that the Russian leader elected to punish the Iranian regime after Israel supplied him with clear-cut evidence that Tehran had given its proxy Hezbollah SA-22 surface-to-air missiles. The intelligence information was corroborated by reports from Russian pilots flying their fighter jets over Lebanon and Syria. The Russian air force anti-missile radars were able to detect SA-22 systems stashed in regions of Lebanon that are under the control of the Shi’ite militia. ================================ 2) By the Times’ telling, it is all her fault. Clinton’s campaign is based on the proposition that the former first lady, senator and secretary of state is the most  experienced presidential candidate and therefore the most qualified. By showing that the one major policy she led as secretary of state was a disaster of epic proportions, the Times’ report pulls the rug out from under the central  rationale for Clinton’s presidential bid. COLUMN ONE: Clinton, Libya and Israel By CAROLINE B. GLICK In recent weeks, the administration has warned various government ministers that any construction of housing  for Jews in Jerusalem will be viewed with hostility by the administration. The messages from Washington ahead of Vice President Joe Biden’s arrival in Israel next week show President  Barack Obama’s hostile policies toward Israel will maintained until he leaves office. In recent weeks, the administration has warned various government ministers that any construction of housing for  Jews in Jerusalem will be viewed with hostility by the administration. In contrast, the administration is pressuring  Israel to permit construction of homes for Arabs in its capital city and harshly opposes all moves by the government to destroy illegal construction in Arab neighborhoods and in Judea and Samaria. In other words, it is the Obama administration’s policy to deny Jews our civil and property rights while it demands  that Israel not assert its sovereignty over non-Jews. Whether or not Obama’s anti-Israel policies will survive his tenure in office depends on who succeeds him. If  Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is elected to serve as the next president, there is no question that they will  survive him. During her four years as Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton was a full partner in Obama’s hostile policies toward  Israel. Moreover, as her internal emails have shown, all of Clinton’s close advisers are hostile to Israel. The good  news for Israel is that Clinton’s chances of election are not as great as they seem from the polls. First of all, there is every reason to believe that in the coming weeks, the Republicans will unite. Either party leaders will back front-runner Donald Trump, or his main competitors, Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, will join forces and win the nomination. The latter alternative, which is gaining traction among Republican leaders and political commentators, involves Cruz, who is more popular with the party’s rank in file than Rubio, and has secured primary victories in four states whereas Rubio finished first only in Minnesota, leading a joint ticket. But even if the GOP remains fractured, Clinton may still be too weak to win the White House in November. This is  first and foremost the case because of the FBI investigation of her use of a private email server during her tenure as  secretary of state. The FBI probe has been going on since last summer. From what we have already learned, as secretary of state,  Clinton and her aides sent thousands of classified emails over her private, unsecured server. Hundreds of those  emails included top secret information and at least two dozen included information whose classification was above  top secret. Under federal law, each time Clinton and her associates sent classified information over the unsecured server they  committed a separate and distinct felony offense. The day after Clinton’s Super Tuesday primary victories in seven states, The New York Times and The Washington  Post reported that Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s aide who set up her private Internet server, has received immunity in  exchange for his testimony to FBI investigators. Although in order to minimize the sense that she is the subject of a criminal probe, Clinton refers to the FBI’s  investigation as a “security review,” the Washington Post reported that the FBI’s investigation is a criminal  investigation. “There was wrongdoing,” one official told the paper. The nature of the US justice system places Clinton’s fate in Obama’s hands. Acting through his Attorney-General  Loretta Lynch, Obama has the power to decide whether to whitewash Clinton’s activities and so make a mockery of the rule of law, or to instruct Lynch to issue indictments. Although it is hard to imagine Obama torpedoing Clinton’s campaign and so paving the way for a Republican victory  in November, this week, the White House signaled that Obama feels no great commitment to Clinton. On Sunday the Times published a 13,000-word, two-part investigation into Clinton’s role in the 2011 overthrow of  Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Published in the White House’s paper of record, the report makes no attempt to  hide the fact that consequences of Gaddafi’s overthrow have been calamitous and that the decision to overthrow the  Libyan strongman was Obama’s most visible foreign policy fiasco. At the time the US overthrew Gaddafi, it was the position of the US defense establishment that he threatened no  one outside his country. Gaddafi had disavowed nuclear weapons and was assisting the US with its campaign against al-Qaida. Moreover,  his regime kept Libya’s massive store of advanced weaponry secure. Since Gaddafi’s overthrow, Libya has ceased to exist as a functioning state. Islamic State has taken over large  swaths of the former country, which now comprises its largest base outside of Syria and Iraq. Hundreds of  thousands of Libyans have been displaced and up to a quarter of a million Libyans have descended on Europe. Libya’s storehouse of advanced weapons has fallen into the hands of jihadists. Huge weapons caches have been  shipped to jihadists from Nigeria to Syria, from Algeria and Tunisia to Gaza and Sinai. Chemical agents as well as  nuclear yellowcake and advanced anti-aircraft missiles were all to be found in Gaddafi’s Libya. The trail of many of  these weapons and WMD agents has grown cold as ISIS in Iraq have made regular use of chemical weapons. The Times’ investigation places the full blame for Obama’s decision to overthrow Gaddafi on Clinton. If it hadn’t  been for Clinton, the story claims, Obama never would have gotten involved. Clinton reportedly not only convinced Obama to join Britain and France in bombing regime targets, she directed  much of the campaign from the State Department. By the Times’ telling, it is all her fault. For most Americans, Clinton’s central role in the Libyan catastrophe is just the icing on the cake of a story of  disaster and defeat that reached its peak on September 11, 2012. That day, al-Qaida attacked US installations in  Benghazi murdering ambassador Chris Stevens and four other Americans. With the public’s preexisting sense that Clinton is to blame for Stevens’s assassination, the Times’ article  represented a frontal assault against her central campaign narrative. Clinton’s campaign is based on the proposition that the former first lady, senator and secretary of state is the most  experienced presidential candidate and therefore the most qualified. By showing that the one major policy she led as  secretary of state was a disaster of epic proportions, the Times’ report pulls the rug out from under the central  rationale for Clinton’s presidential bid. The White House’s decision to make Clinton the fall guy for Libya while she is running to succeed him signals that at  a minimum Obama is far from invested in her victory. Even worse for Clinton, since she is dependent on Obama’s  goodwill to evade an indictment for her transfer of classified information over her private server, Clinton cannot  defend herself. From an Israeli perspective, the lessons of Libya have little to do with Clinton’s woes. But they do need to be applied  to future dealings with the Obama administration and its successor. The main lesson for Israel from Libya is that in the era of al-Qaida, Islamic State, and Iranian- sponsored terrorist  armies, there is no such thing as a stand-alone conflict in the Islamic world. Obama and Clinton justified their decision to overthrow Gaddafi by falsely insisting that Gaddafi was about to carry  out a slaughter of his opponents that rose to the level of genocide. They also falsely insinuated that a post-Gaddafi  Libya would be a pro-American democracy. At the same time, they refused to notice mountains of evidence that al-Qaida was a major force in the anti-Gaddafi  rebellion and was well positioned to take control over large swathes of the country if he were overthrown. The underlying assumption of the administration’s campaign in Libya was that what happens in Libya stays in Libya. As it turned out, this was the most disastrous assumption of its decision-  making process. The contagion of Islamic revolutions began in neighboring Tunisia a year before the US decided to overthrow  Gaddafi. That contagion made clear that there are no isolated events in the Islamic world anymore. Every perceived  victory for jihadist forces impacts jihadists regionally and throughout the world. The impact is massively escalated  when jihadists gain actual ground – as was the case in Libya. The implications for Israel in regard to the administration’s demand that Israel commit to  withdrawing from Judea and Samaria and effectively end its sovereign rule over Jerusalem  are dire. Every time Israel withdraws from territory, jihadists regionally and worldwide proclaim  victory and – perhaps more important – are perceived as the actual victors. So it was in 2000. In the aftermath of the IDF’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Hezbollah was  viewed in Lebanon and throughout the Islamic world as the victor. This is the main reason that Hezbollah, rather  than the Lebanese armed forces, asserted its control over south Lebanon immediately after the IDF departed. In 2005, the Palestinians and the larger Islamic world viewed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as a victory for Hamas.  To a significant degree, it was this widespread conviction that jihad defeated the Jews that propelled Hamas to  victory in the Palestinian elections held in January 2006. Today ISIS and other jihadist forces are growing in power and influence along Israel’s borders and inside its  sovereign territory. This week the Shin Bet revealed that it arrested two more Israeli Arabs who joined ISIS. On Wednesday Jordanian security forces fought a pitched battle against ISIS terrorists in Irbid. Seven ISIS fighters and one Jordanian policeman were killed. Five Jordanian security forces were wounded. Since the Syrian war broke out five years ago, hundreds of Jordanians have entered Syria to fight on behalf of  anti-regime forces, including ISIS. Hundreds are also suspected of having returned to the kingdom. Moreover, ISIS is believed to have the support of a  significant number of Jordanians. The genocidal jihadist force is waging a major propaganda campaign against the Jordanian regime. If Israel bows to US pressure and withdraws from Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem,  either in the framework of a peace deal with the PLO or unilaterally, these moves will be  immediately perceived regionally as a massive victory for the forces of jihad. Not only will  Israel be imperiled, the fate of the Jordanian regime will likely be sealed as empowered  jihadists launch a war against the Western-allied regime. In the world of ISIS and Iran, Israeli sovereignty over united Jerusalem and Israeli control over  Judea and Samaria is only real, best guarantor of the survival of the Hashemite Kingdom in  Jordan, and of what’s left of stability in the Middle East, after seven years of Obama’s – and  Clinton’s – foreign policy. This should be the message to Biden next week, and the basis for our policies in the months  and years to come. ================================================================================ 3) Hassan Rouhani, ‘Moderates’ and Iran’s Post-Election Path By MARK DUBOWITZ The recent elections in Iran sparked intense debate in the West. Many news outlets and analysts reported a  resounding win by “moderates” supporting President Hassan Rouhani over hard-liners backed by Supreme Leader  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Others saw through the guise of notorious hard-liners running as “moderates.” Hundreds of real moderates—those who want to make political and religious changes—were barred from running or didn’t even  try to register; the most prominent remain under house arrest, in jail, or in exile. The Wilson Center’s Haleh Esfandiari, who knows something about the Iranian regime’s duplicity and brutality (she  spent 105 days in solitary confinement in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison), dampened the post-election enthusiasm.  In a recent Think Tank post, she wrote that, election results notwithstanding, Iran’s supreme leader, security  agencies, and Revolutionary Guards control the country’s human rights, political freedoms, and major foreign policy issues. Still, Ms. Esfandiari saw reason for optimism, saying that the strong public support from the elections  strengthened Mr. Rouhani’s hand in general and could give him more maneuvering room to implement economic  and political changes. Here’s why that thinking doesn’t hold up: Mr. Rouhani is not a moderate committed to transformation but a stalwart  of the elite dedicated to preserving the revolution and clerical supremacy. These elections are evidence of how little  the elite is changing: Mr. Rouhani is trying to reestablish unity after the fraudulent 2009 presidential election, and the Green Movement protests that followed, deeply divided the ruling elite and the country. Mr. Rouhani has been hailed as a man of the system who nevertheless wants to make fundamental changes that would gradually free Iranian society and politics. Where is the evidence? In 1999, he supported crushing the student  movement supporting then-President Mohammad Khatami, which effectively killed the only possibility for reform in  Mr. Khatami’s presidency. Mr. Rouhani condemned student dissent in a 1999 speech and even threatened capital  punishment. Since Mr. Rouhani was elected president in 2013, human rights abuses have worsened; executions by  the state increased to around 1,000 in 2015. Far from changing the basic structure of the Islamic Republic, Mr. Rouhani’s model seems to be more foreign- investment-led economic growth married to a more intelligently managed police state. This is a variation of the  models of authoritarian control and crony capitalism of the Chinese Communist Party or Vladimir Putin. Mr.  Rouhani hasn’t abandoned his commitment to clerical rule. He has moved to strengthen the regime internally through economic reform and devoted greater resources to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and the Hezbollah-ization of Iraq. He has supported budget increases for the Revolutionary Guards, who have opposed him on many issues, as  well as the Basij paramilitary forces and the much-feared Ministry of Intelligence. Concerning economics, little about the crony capitalism that Mr. Rouhani and former President Akbar Hashemi  Rafsanjani practiced in the 1990s–a time of considerable domestic oppression and foreign terrorism–suggests that  economic reforms are more likely now. The biggest beneficiaries of the nuclear deal are likely to be not private  businesses but Iran’s supreme leader and the Revolutionary Guards, who dominate the major sectors of Iran’s  economy; already, their companies are reaping the initial post-sanctions windfall. None of this should surprise: Mr. Rouhani and Ayatollah Khamenei have worked together amicably for decades.  After the trauma of 2009, why would Ayatollah Khamenei have allowed Mr. Rouhani to become president if the  supreme leader thought he would be disloyal to him or the fundamentals of the regime? Mr. Rouhani isn’t likely to  reinforce “moderation” in Iran’s regime; he may, however, make the Islamic Republic a more formidable force in the  Middle East. Mark Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where he  leads projects on Iran and nonproliferation. He is also head of its Center on Sanctions and  Illicit Finance.  ===================================================================== 4)My daughter, Debra, and my son-in-law, Martin, have launched a creative collaboration that encourages us all to reclaim the art and pleasure of real-time conversation. The way we did before email, texting and the rest. Debra, as you may know, is a journalist by trade; Martin is a wonderful photographer. This set of Picture a Conversation™ cards blends both their talents. On the front of each card is one of Martin's wonderful nature photographs accompanied by a quote written by Debra. On the  reverse are three questions that Debra has crafted to jump start great conversations. We have a set already and they are wonderful. Very professional and well-designed. There are twenty-five  cards in the deck plus instructions. Our granddaughter, Emma, created  all the graphic design elements, so this really is a family affair. They spent a year plus testing them with all sorts of sectors -- women's groups,        couples and couple's counselors, families with kids of all ages and others. The feedback was encouraging enough for them to go into production and launch.  Please visit their site -- pictureaconversation.com -- .  They makes a great gift for newlyweds and friends, as a housewarming gift, for your adult children and grandchildren,  even to keep in the glove compartment for long drives or short jaunts if you're carpooling your grandchildren. Much better than, "What did you  do in school today?" Put them in a picnic basket or take them to the beach at your next family gathering. Even if you think you know everything about  your spouse or partner, these cards may  give you new insights and enjoyment. Great conversations are on the horizon.  Check out pictureaconversation.com and let the talk flow. =================================================================================== 5) Appreciating Nancy Reagan (1921-2016) The Reagans’ devotion to each other was genuine—and the caricatures of the first lady completely unreal. By MARK D. WEINBERG The too-common narrative about Nancy Reagan—that she was vain, manipulative and the “power behind the throne”—is simply inaccurate. I worked for her and her husband in the 1980 presidential campaign, all eight years in the White House and several years thereafter in Los Angeles. Mrs. Reagan, who died Sunday at age 94, was nothing like the caricature now regarded in many quarters as fact. The last time I saw her was a few months ago. She was in a wheelchair but looked great. Her voice was quieter than I remembered, but she was in excellent spirits. She seemed especially happy to share memories of watching movies at Camp David. I knew it might be the last time I would see her. The Reagans’ relationship initially was a mystery to me. The first time I heard Ronald Reagan say that he missed Nancy even “when she’s just in the next room,” such devotion seemed way over the top. But it soon became clear that theirs was a rare and lifelong romance. What the public saw of the Reagans together was how they were behind the scenes—they held hands, whispered to each other, exchanged glances and were edgy when the other was absent. The key to understanding Nancy Reagan can be found in what she once told an interviewer: “I want everyone to feel about Ronnie the way I do.” She never viewed the White House as “her” home, but rather as a treasure that belonged to the American people, a place for which she was responsible. “Families think about coming to the White House for years,” I recall her saying. “They plan for it, they save for it, they look forward to it, and it means so much.” She wanted White House visitors to feel that they were seeing “the best of America,” she said. “I don’t ever want anyone to leave feeling disappointed.” That’s why she worried about the condition of everything from the White House furniture to the dinner plates. The staff tried not to schedule presidential events on the White House State Floor during tour hours, because that meant closing the Blue Room and other rooms to the public. When that happened, there would inevitably be a call from the first lady asking why the event couldn’t take place in the auditorium in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House. Mrs. Reagan was criticized for what some perceived as her obsession with fashion and fancy clothes. But as first lady, she felt that she represented America and should always look her best. Mrs. Reagan was happiest when she and her husband were in jeans, soft denim shirts and tennis shoes at Camp David or at their ranch near Santa Barbara. Given the seemingly relentless criticism she endured during the Reagans’ first year in the White House, it would have been understandable if she had kept a low public profile, but she was a fighter. Instead of withdrawing, she launched a campaign against drug abuse—a cause that she cared about deeply, and continued to focus on after leaving the White House. (See the nearby Journal op-ed from 1996.) Mrs. Reagan’s efforts no doubt saved countless lives. The past dozen years for Mrs. Reagan were difficult. She had watched the love of her life grow sicker, unable to share the memories of their time together. And when Ronald Reagan died in 2004, it was not the “relief” to her that many predicted. Sadness never left her. She gradually lost some of her mobility and her vision began to go. But she remained sharp, engaged and interested in others—in a kindly way, with little tolerance for mean-spirited remarks. “You never know everything,” Mrs. Reagan would admonish. “There’s always another side to the story.” Mr. Weinberg, special assistant to the president and assistant press secretary in the Reagan White House, is writing a book, “Movie Nights With the Reagans,” forthcoming from Simon & Schuster. 5a) Judge Nap: Hillary Will Face 'Horrific Catch-22' When  Email Probe Ends Clinton to appear at Fox News town hall tonight.  Judge Napolitano: 'Hillary Should Be Terrified That Ex- Staffer Was Granted Immunity' FBI Probes Whether Clinton Aides Shared Passwords to View Classified Info Judge Napolitano said this morning that he foresees a "horrific Catch-22" coming  for Hillary Clinton as the FBI's investigation of her private email server continues.  Stuart Varney asked the judge to respond to a Democratic lawmaker who claimed  this weekend that the investigation of Clinton's emails is closed. "Congress has looked into it, the Justice Department has looked into it and they've  cleared her," said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas). Napolitano said he doesn't understand how Democrats can be brushing off the  seriousness of the investigation, which he expects will wrap around May.  He said at that point, he expects that Clinton will be asked to appear for an interview with investigators, leaving her with a "horrific Catch-22." Napolitano said no lawyer would ever allow their client to appear for such an  interview without knowing what the feds know, and the Justice Department won't  disclose that information. "If she refuses to go in for that interview, her opponents will have a field day.  [They'll say] wait a minute, you say you're innocent, but you don't want to tell the  FBI?' Either way, she loses," he explained. Last week, Judge Nap said Clinton should be "terrified" after the DOJ granted  immunity to the ex-staffer who set up her private server. "Here's the question she doesn't want to hear him answer: 'Mr Pagliano, how did  you migrate secure state secrets into a non-secure venue. Did Mrs. Clinton give  you her password?' If the answer is yes, then she's committed another crime," said Napolitano. =============================================================