When heavily redacted innuendo is needed to make a point…there is NO point.

Most of the oxygen spent on vindicating Schiff’s memo response to the Nunes memo is focused on lead sentences artfully implying contradictions…but then heavily redacted.

Which explains our use of the ‘artfully’ terminology.

The Nunes memo baldly accuses the DOJ and FBI of flat out abusing the FISA system to surveille Trump during his political campaign, and his transition after being elected.

The Schiff memo refutes that accusation, but with leading sentences very skillfully set up to be heavily redacted, leading one to believe there’s more ‘there’ there…when in actuality, there may be nothing but more fluff, with no substance to such implications.

But, ah-ha! Guess who has a copy of the un-redacted memo? President Trump.

(Democrat Schiff sent it to him un-redacted, trying to trap him into forcing redactions.)

And, if President Trump sees anything ‘curious’ about unneeded redactions that might mislead one into assuming there’s actual substance, he can ‘trump’ Schiff’s efforts.

Besides, as of today, there’s still no explanation why Obama’s DOJ and FBI…

• Used the dirt-dossier with unsubstantiated rumor as the basis for a FISA warrant;
• Failed to advise the court the rumors were 3rd hand, anonymous hearsay;
• Failed to advise the court the opposition Democrat campaign funded the dossier;
• Failed to update the court during warrant renewals that its author lied to the FBI;
• Failed to interview the warrant target (Page) before applying for the warrant.

Had any of this been properly revealed, the FISA warrant wouldn’t have been ok’d.

(French’s article fails to answer any of the abuses noted above, while trying to make the point that ‘corroboration may be there, but had to be redacted’…which makes no sense. If there was corroborating information, stating that would NOT require redacting.)

(And we couldn’t finish this post in good conscience without noting this gem closer from French…“The Democratic rebuttal undermines important Republican assertions without decisively refuting the key allegations.” Mr. French – how.is.that.possible?)

In any event, we’re fed up with all these slow-motion oneupmanship games, we tire of the partisan Democrat rancor and of useful idiot anti-Trump Republicans like David French…so willing to help the Democrats with bogus efforts to substantiate LIES.

So, c’mon, Mr. President – compare Schiff’s original version to the redacted…

…and BLOW HIM AND HIS DEMOCRAT COHORT OUT OF THE WATER.

Then order your Justice Dept. to start knocking heads…this has gone on too long.