Your argument that everyone who is against it doesn't care about nuances doesn't hold any water.
Your language is curious for someone who claims a nuanced understanding:
"otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in court"[1], "alternative lawful method"[2].
[1] is wrong because the evidence the NSA use for the tip, however legally or illegally it was acquired, is not used in court. Exhonerating evidence they acquired is not seen by the court.
[2] if the initial acquisition is inadmissible because it's illegally acquired then the alternative evidence acquisition is fruit of the poisoned tree, and any cover up probably illegal.
[1] and [2] imply the evidence acquired by the NSA and the DEA are the same evidence, and this is not the case.
The DOJ are investigating "Parallel Construction". If it was obviously legitimate, they would not be.
Your language is curious for someone who claims a nuanced understanding: "otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in court"[1], "alternative lawful method"[2].
[1] is wrong because the evidence the NSA use for the tip, however legally or illegally it was acquired, is not used in court. Exhonerating evidence they acquired is not seen by the court.
[2] if the initial acquisition is inadmissible because it's illegally acquired then the alternative evidence acquisition is fruit of the poisoned tree, and any cover up probably illegal.
[1] and [2] imply the evidence acquired by the NSA and the DEA are the same evidence, and this is not the case.
The DOJ are investigating "Parallel Construction". If it was obviously legitimate, they would not be.