With that in mind, on the affidavit itself, there is an alternative to all-out trench warfare over “redaction” versus “no redaction.” Namely, to paraphrase where possible what the actual affidavit says.

This would allow at least some additional information to be made public. Such paraphrasing, of course, would have to be approved by the magistrate to ensure it accurately, if more obscurely, reflects what the original text said. For example, affidavit references to classified documents might contain actual sensitive information from the documents or materials that could reveal sources and methods of gathering intelligence. Instead, phrases could be used like “information about American nuclear weapons” or “information about Chinese ballistic missile capabilities.” There might be ways to refer to present or future witnesses that would not reveal their identities or make them easily identifiable. There could be more generalized statements about the probable cause narrative on what crimes Justice alleges have been committed.

True, there are almost certainly cases where paraphrasing is impossible, in which case the magistrate will have to rule on full disclosure or no disclosure. Like everyone else in this debate except Justice Department personnel and the magistrate, I have not seen the affidavit. I do not underestimate how difficult or unusual is the suggestion I am making. If there are better suggestions, let’s hear them. Otherwise, important law enforcement institutions are in for a firestorm of unanswered criticism.