Legislative Coup d' Etat?

This is how the story goes. In a not too far away country Presidential elections are on. The President of the State is elected by Parliament. Let's just assume for the purposes of this story that the required quorum for a successful election is short by 20 MP votes. MP X receives a phone call from a-(many) Political Party Adviser to meet up for coffee. Agenda unknown. MP X and the Adviser know each other and have been or have not been doing business in the past. During the meeting MP X receives an offer by Adviser consisting of cash, debt-forgiveness and TV contracts (as MP X is also an actor) in exchange for his positive vote on the President. From this point on the story becomes suspicious. Both individuals involved, enter a role-play with the sole objective to collect evidence that proves that the other party is politically immoral and receptive to bribe. Let us not ask why they are doing it and let us just assume that both are part of a reality game that requests that as part of a "mission". At this point from a legal assessment view, both are already playing with fire. Both actors agree to defer the discussion to a subsequent meeting, which shall take place at the house of MP X. Prior to this meeting MP X goes to the District Attorney (DA) to disclose the attempted bribe initiated by Adviser, however - at the recommendation of the DA - is not disclosing the name of the Adviser. Police organises the set-up, bugs the house, mobilises forces to arrest Phantom Adviser. Phantom Adviser (allegedly tipped-off) never shows up for this meeting (rumour has it that he took a last minute turn to avoid the trap). Interesting, right? MP X files charges for attempted bribery by named (no longer Phantom) Adviser and deposits evidence (tapes of conversations with Adviser) with the DA, who locks that evidence to make sure there is no leakage. Adviser is invited by DA to make his deposition regarding the charges. Further to the deposition, DA concludes that the evidence presented by MP X is inadmissible (illegally obtained) and dismisses the case. Adviser runs free, MP X is sued by the PM of the Country (charges yet unknown), and is running the risk of high fines and other disciplinary measures. MP X files a request with DA to revoke telephone privacy in order to obtain the trailing calls that will fill-in the blanc spots in this puzzle. DA refuses such request with no legal or with manufactured legal justification. N.B.: For the avoidance of any doubt this far away country is an EU-Country and is reigned by Democracy and the Rule of Law. Moral of the Story: It is always vain to take on the system no matter how legally solid your case!