Interview with Clark S. Judge, speechwriter in the Reagan White House: seem to be facing an Alice in Wonderland-Queen of Hearts-like moment: verdict first, trial later
Clark S. Judge is the founder and managing director of White House Writers Group, as well as an opinion journalist, who wrote for publications such as Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, NYTimes.com, USNews.com, Policy Review, National Review Online. Mr. Judge was a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan and for Vice president George Bush. In this interview for 45north, Clark Judge talked with Dragoș Tîrnoveanu about the political scene in the U.S. as well as its impact on the transatlantic relationship with Central and Eastern Europe.
DT: The political topic of the day in the U.S. is the prospect of impeachment of President Trump. You’ve seen the transcript of the phone conversation with President Zelensky. Do you think we have a quid pro quo and how do you see the process unfold?
CJ: I have read the transcript several times and see no quid pro quo.
We are in a difficult period in the United States. As a Wall Street Journal editor noted in a podcast this week, the opposition party still cannot accept that it lost – and that Mr. Trump could have won the 2016 election with no foreign power’s help. So they feel no hesitation about focusing all their energies on unseating him, rather than on finding common ground for needed reforms. A prominent magazine, The Atlantic, caught the Democrat’s mood in their daily email early this week, saying that Democrats in the House of Representatives are united in determination to impeach the President, but they “can’t agree on the reasons for impeachment.” So we seem to be facing an Alice in Wonderland-Queen of Hearts-like moment: verdict first, trial later.
As to how the process unfolds: It is both simpler and more complicated than it looks.
On the simple side, the Democrat Party majority in the House of Representatives will vote to impeach (equivalent to a grand jury indictment). The Republican majority in the Senate will vote to acquit. And that will be the end of it.
On the complicated side: After months of work, a highly regarded prosecutor at the Justice Department has turned his inquiry into the Russia probe into a criminal investigation of where the probe originated and how it was conducted. Targets will surely include senior figures at the CIA and FBI but may also focus on the 2016 Clinton campaign and top officials in the previous administration.
Meanwhile Justice Department’s inspector general (appointed by President Obama) is about to issue a report about the conduct of the department and the FBI during the Trump-Russia probe. The report is expected to be extremely damning toward the FBI and the department itself.
And just this morning a brief filed on behalf of Michael Flynn (the president’s first National Security Advisor who resigned amid allegations of lying to the FBI regarding talks with the Russian ambassador) appears to document that FBI officials edited the notes of their agency’s interview with General Flynn to sound as if he said things he did not in fact say.
Finally, text messages and emails have surfaced that suggest collusion among the agencies involved in the increasingly suspect Trump-Russia probe, the Clinton campaign and the previous administration’s White House.
In short, all sides are at risk in the months ahead, and the true villains may not yet be known.
DT: Regarding the 2020 presidential election, obviously it is very early to predict anything but in your opinion, who will win the Democrat ticket and does he or she have a chance to beat Trump?
CJ: As of today, the strongest Democrat candidate appears to be Senator Elizabeth Warren. The two major political parties are closely matched in strength. Despite all the sound and fury coming from Washington since Election Day 2016, public opinion appears to have shifted very little, if at all. Those who liked Mr. Trump then do so now. Those who disliked him still dislike him. Unless something happens that truly moves opinion, it will be a close election.
DT: How does the highly polarized American political scene affect its relations to the Europe, particularly Central and Eastern Europe? We’ve seen growing ties between the U.S. and countries like Poland and Romania under the Trump administration. Could this positive trend reverse or slow down if a Democrat wins the 2020 election?
CJ: I spend a great deal of time worrying about and working on this issue. In my judgment the keys to preserving the gains that Eastern and Central Europe have made in Washington during the Trump years and ensuring continuity of positive policies towards the region are: 1) building American awareness of how critical the region is to a strong NATO and, through NATO, to America’s own security; 2) Engaging not only with Republicans but also with Democrats to explain the region, the role the Three Seas play in the West’s security and political stability, and the importance of energy security; and 3) diversifying the region’s sources of energy.
DT: While Poland and Romania have chosen to solidify their relation with the U.S. and request a permanent American military presence, Hungary has taken a different path, having a more open relationship with Putin. What do you think of this?
CJ: All the countries you mention have an excellent relationship with the Trump Administration. Hungary is a NATO ally. It is also landlocked with internal sources of energy capable of meeting only half its needs. Hungary is a prime example of the urgency of diversifying Central and Eastern Europe’s sources of energy and of all the region’s countries working together.
DT: Romania seems closer than ever to the United States, with President Iohannis visiting the White House two times during his term. Even so, Romanian citizens still require visas and there is a sense that American investments here are below expectations. One culprit for this status quo has been said to be corruption. How is the U.S. helping Romania to fight corruption?
CJ: This is a technical question. I simply do not know these areas of policy well enough to give a useful answer, but if corruption in Romania inhibits international investment, it is up to sovereign Romania to tackle it. Neither Washington nor Brussels should impose solutions to Romania’s problems from without. At the same time, Romania must recognize a basic reality. The world’s most desirable investors — those who bring to a country new businesses, new technologies, new skills and new jobs, will come and stay in far fewer numbers when a country is corrupt.
See original post.
Interview with Romanian news publication | 45North | 10.26.2019
Interview with Clark S. Judge, speechwriter in the Reagan White House: seem to be facing an Alice in Wonderland-Queen of Hearts-like moment: verdict first, trial later
Clark S. Judge is the founder and managing director of White House Writers Group, as well as an opinion journalist, who wrote for publications such as Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, NYTimes.com, USNews.com, Policy Review, National Review Online. Mr. Judge was a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan and for Vice president George Bush. In this interview for 45north, Clark Judge talked with Dragoș Tîrnoveanu about the political scene in the U.S. as well as its impact on the transatlantic relationship with Central and Eastern Europe.
DT: The political topic of the day in the U.S. is the prospect of impeachment of President Trump. You’ve seen the transcript of the phone conversation with President Zelensky. Do you think we have a quid pro quo and how do you see the process unfold?
CJ: I have read the transcript several times and see no quid pro quo.
We are in a difficult period in the United States. As a Wall Street Journal editor noted in a podcast this week, the opposition party still cannot accept that it lost – and that Mr. Trump could have won the 2016 election with no foreign power’s help. So they feel no hesitation about focusing all their energies on unseating him, rather than on finding common ground for needed reforms. A prominent magazine, The Atlantic, caught the Democrat’s mood in their daily email early this week, saying that Democrats in the House of Representatives are united in determination to impeach the President, but they “can’t agree on the reasons for impeachment.” So we seem to be facing an Alice in Wonderland-Queen of Hearts-like moment: verdict first, trial later.
As to how the process unfolds: It is both simpler and more complicated than it looks.
On the simple side, the Democrat Party majority in the House of Representatives will vote to impeach (equivalent to a grand jury indictment). The Republican majority in the Senate will vote to acquit. And that will be the end of it.
On the complicated side: After months of work, a highly regarded prosecutor at the Justice Department has turned his inquiry into the Russia probe into a criminal investigation of where the probe originated and how it was conducted. Targets will surely include senior figures at the CIA and FBI but may also focus on the 2016 Clinton campaign and top officials in the previous administration.
Meanwhile Justice Department’s inspector general (appointed by President Obama) is about to issue a report about the conduct of the department and the FBI during the Trump-Russia probe. The report is expected to be extremely damning toward the FBI and the department itself.
And just this morning a brief filed on behalf of Michael Flynn (the president’s first National Security Advisor who resigned amid allegations of lying to the FBI regarding talks with the Russian ambassador) appears to document that FBI officials edited the notes of their agency’s interview with General Flynn to sound as if he said things he did not in fact say.
Finally, text messages and emails have surfaced that suggest collusion among the agencies involved in the increasingly suspect Trump-Russia probe, the Clinton campaign and the previous administration’s White House.
In short, all sides are at risk in the months ahead, and the true villains may not yet be known.
DT: Regarding the 2020 presidential election, obviously it is very early to predict anything but in your opinion, who will win the Democrat ticket and does he or she have a chance to beat Trump?
CJ: As of today, the strongest Democrat candidate appears to be Senator Elizabeth Warren. The two major political parties are closely matched in strength. Despite all the sound and fury coming from Washington since Election Day 2016, public opinion appears to have shifted very little, if at all. Those who liked Mr. Trump then do so now. Those who disliked him still dislike him. Unless something happens that truly moves opinion, it will be a close election.
DT: How does the highly polarized American political scene affect its relations to the Europe, particularly Central and Eastern Europe? We’ve seen growing ties between the U.S. and countries like Poland and Romania under the Trump administration. Could this positive trend reverse or slow down if a Democrat wins the 2020 election?
CJ: I spend a great deal of time worrying about and working on this issue. In my judgment the keys to preserving the gains that Eastern and Central Europe have made in Washington during the Trump years and ensuring continuity of positive policies towards the region are: 1) building American awareness of how critical the region is to a strong NATO and, through NATO, to America’s own security; 2) Engaging not only with Republicans but also with Democrats to explain the region, the role the Three Seas play in the West’s security and political stability, and the importance of energy security; and 3) diversifying the region’s sources of energy.
DT: While Poland and Romania have chosen to solidify their relation with the U.S. and request a permanent American military presence, Hungary has taken a different path, having a more open relationship with Putin. What do you think of this?
CJ: All the countries you mention have an excellent relationship with the Trump Administration. Hungary is a NATO ally. It is also landlocked with internal sources of energy capable of meeting only half its needs. Hungary is a prime example of the urgency of diversifying Central and Eastern Europe’s sources of energy and of all the region’s countries working together.
DT: Romania seems closer than ever to the United States, with President Iohannis visiting the White House two times during his term. Even so, Romanian citizens still require visas and there is a sense that American investments here are below expectations. One culprit for this status quo has been said to be corruption. How is the U.S. helping Romania to fight corruption?
CJ: This is a technical question. I simply do not know these areas of policy well enough to give a useful answer, but if corruption in Romania inhibits international investment, it is up to sovereign Romania to tackle it. Neither Washington nor Brussels should impose solutions to Romania’s problems from without. At the same time, Romania must recognize a basic reality. The world’s most desirable investors — those who bring to a country new businesses, new technologies, new skills and new jobs, will come and stay in far fewer numbers when a country is corrupt.
See original post.