Everyone knows that words, written or spoken, can have tremendous power. But when they are written or spoken extremely well — clearly, forcefully, straightforwardly — their impact is particularly magnified.
That’s what we witnessed today with release of the whistle-blower’s complaint.
When I turned on the TV this morning, the first thing I saw was Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, being quizzed by members of U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee.
It was all political noise, with the Democrats trying to get him to say one thing and the Republicans trying to get him to say another.
…For me, it was time to go straight to the document, which I did.
And it is amazing.

Whoever the whistle-blower is, he or she (for the sake of simplicity, I’m going to use “he” from here on out) is 1) a veteran in the intelligence realm; 2) steeped in knowledge of intelligence agency rules and procedures; 3) very courageous; 4) a hell of a writer.
It’s no wonder that, as The New York Times reported earlier today, part of the Republican strategy will be to focus on the reconstructed transcript of the Donald Trump-Volodymyr Zelensky phone call, not on the whistle-blower’s account.
If enough people read and absorb the whistle-blower’s complaint, it could easily end up turning enough voters against Trump to cost him re-election. (If impeached by the House of Representatives, it appears he would not be “convicted” by two-thirds of U.S. senators.)
The letter — addressed to Schiff and U.S. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, consists of seven crystal-clear pages, with a dozen detailed and helpful footnotes.
(Very craftily, in one footnote, the writer preemptively moves to deter his supervisors from categorizing his complaint as “classified,” which would make it more difficult to get it into the public realm. The complaint should be “unclassified,” he says, because, “There is ample open-source information about the efforts I describe below.”)
If you’re a student of the King’s English or just enjoy persuasive writing, this letter is worth taking a closer look at…Come along, if you will.
…As far as I can tell, the letter does not have one grammatical error. It is cohesive and extraordinarily well organized. Every word, whether part of the text or the footnotes, helps advance the writer’s devastating charge, set forth in these words in Paragraph Two:
“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”
That sentence rivets the reader’s focus. The word “official” lets you know this is someone who knows what he (or she) is talking about. That the information comes from “multiple…officials” lends credence to its factuality.
And then the cudgel: “The President…is using the power of his office to solicit interference…”
** But the writer realizes he has to make the case for his credibility. So he says…
“Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.”
(Apparently, about a dozen people were listening in on the conversation at one place or another, amplifying Trump’s lunacy and audacity.)
** Having stated his charge at the outset, the whistle-blower tells his readers why they should care…
“I am…concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government’s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.”
** Then, like a salesman unlatching his briefcase to display his products, the writer launches into a four-point examination of what has come to his attention.
Point 1: The July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky
Point 2: “Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call”
Point 3: “Ongoing concerns”
Point 4: Circumstances leading up to the call
In persuasive writing and reporting, you always want to give as much detail as possible. The whistle-blower does that very effectively when addressing the efforts that were made to shield records related to the call.
He says…
“White House officials told me that they were ‘directed’ by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.
“Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”
All that is very damning and goes directly to an overarching point the writer made earlier: “This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”
Toward the end of the letter, the whistle-blower reveals that not only did Trump try to shake down Zelensky in the phone call but that, earlier, Ukrainian leaders had been told a phone call between Trump and Zelensky depended on whether Zelensky showed willingness to “play ball” regarding the effort led by Trump to uncover dirt on Joe Biden.
…It’s a very nasty and “deeply disturbing” (to cop a term many Democrats are using) business. But the whistle-blower lays it out in a spectacularly beautiful body of words.
Read Full Post »