Right.
Had the court seen the obviously fabricated salacious passages, they may have been more inclined to regard the entire instrument as a politically motivated fabrication, which it was.
It's a worse problem than that. The warrant required evidence not some statements pulled from some document. The first question from any judge is where is the document. If you say "you don't need to see it, just these portions" you have not presented evidence.
The document is the evidence and the portions are useless without it. For example if you present portions of a newspaper article you present the publication, date, article, author(s), and anything that can be found out about it so it can be evaluated. You can highlight the relevant parts and say the rest is not relevant but the article is the evidence.