NO. That's plain ignorance and a non-sequitur on your part.
The FISA warrants weren't legal because the FISA COURT was lied to.
Note that a grand jury is NOT the same as a FISA court, btw. They have different purposes and standards. HOWEVER, it isn't legal to lie to a grand jury, either. BUT, that's not what is being discussed here. So, take your strawman and go away. FAR away....
the applicant in FISA can play the same plausible deniability unless they acknowledged the available exonerating evidence in FISA case (that Steele Dossier was junk, etc, etc), as is the case with Bragg. if Bragg acknowledges and reviews the exonerating evidence he knows there's no case
This is BS.
A DA is not LEGALLY obligated to show exculpatory evidence to a GRAND JURY.
In a regular trial, yes, that is required. But, NOT for a grand jury.
Nothing. NOTHING... to see here.
by your argument, the FISA warrants against Trump campaign were legit too until a trial scenario
NO. That's plain ignorance and a non-sequitur on your part.
The FISA warrants weren't legal because the FISA COURT was lied to.
Note that a grand jury is NOT the same as a FISA court, btw. They have different purposes and standards. HOWEVER, it isn't legal to lie to a grand jury, either. BUT, that's not what is being discussed here. So, take your strawman and go away. FAR away....
the applicant in FISA can play the same plausible deniability unless they acknowledged the available exonerating evidence in FISA case (that Steele Dossier was junk, etc, etc), as is the case with Bragg. if Bragg acknowledges and reviews the exonerating evidence he knows there's no case