or maybe like this?
The document has been redacted, but the people responsible for the redactions were incompetent. They left the index in the document and only redacted the words in the index, not the page and paragraph references.
Thus, you can see that at 210:17 there was been a word redacted which is between “depth” and “described,” and another between “airport” and “alcohol.” That would be Al Dershowitz. In other instances, it refers to him as “Alan,” but you can tell which is “Al” and which is “Alan” by the length of the black-out! So the one at 211:15 is obviously “Alan” Dershowitz rather than “Al.”
Similarly, you can match a word between “bikini” and “birth” with a word between “clients” and “clock” at, for example, 130:3. That would obviously be Bill Clinton. That particular reference can be corroborated. The word “Clinton” also appears several times unredacted in some innocent context, and those instances can easily be found in the index under the redacted entry between “clients” and “clock.” Once you know where Clinton can be found, it becomes obvious that the word between “present” and “press” must be “President.”
The one between “analyzed” and “angeles” matches with one between “primary” and “print” at 111:8, for example. That would be Prince Andrew.
Based on the index, neither “Donald” nor “Trump” appears anywhere in the document. Mar-a-Lago appears many times and has not been redacted because the context is innocent.
“Naomi Campbell, at 50 years old, still looks awesome.”
More of Chuck 90-10 below (to me this looks like a completely different person):