Tell me if I've got this straight.
A). The original FISA warrant was granted on the basis of the Steele dossier.
B). Subsequent warrants were granted based on the Steele dossier and information gathered from investigations based on the original warrant.
C). The Steele dossier has been proven to be totally false, bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
Is this a correct summation so far?
D). If so, would it not hold true that ALL further investigations, including the Mueller report, were based on false evidence?
The Question: If indeed D is the case, and the Steele dossier is false, would/could it be ruled that all evidence gathered as a result is inadmissible in a court of law, and all the convictions of Flynn, Manafort and all the other players named in the Mueller Report could have their convictions thrown out because the evidence gathered against them was based on original false testimony?
I'm by no means a lawyer, just wondering if my reasoning, or lack thereof, holds any water.
A). The original FISA warrant was granted on the basis of the Steele dossier.
B). Subsequent warrants were granted based on the Steele dossier and information gathered from investigations based on the original warrant.
C). The Steele dossier has been proven to be totally false, bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
Is this a correct summation so far?
D). If so, would it not hold true that ALL further investigations, including the Mueller report, were based on false evidence?
The Question: If indeed D is the case, and the Steele dossier is false, would/could it be ruled that all evidence gathered as a result is inadmissible in a court of law, and all the convictions of Flynn, Manafort and all the other players named in the Mueller Report could have their convictions thrown out because the evidence gathered against them was based on original false testimony?
I'm by no means a lawyer, just wondering if my reasoning, or lack thereof, holds any water.