What If the Arrests Have Already Happened?

I  receive messages every day from friends who are about to give up hope. People around the globe are frustrated because they’ve waited years for corrupt people in Hollywood, government and the corporate world to be arrested. We’re continually promised they will be put in jail but it never happens.

It may sound crazy, but what if the arrests have already happened and we simply didn’t recognize it?

Our perception of this kind of justice is being able to watch a well-known person being escorted by police while dozens of reporters looking on.

When we don’t see this, we conclude that nothing has happened. After all, if something had happened to a corrupt person in a place of power, surely the mainstream media would have told us know about it, wouldn’t they?

Unfortunately, that’s not how our criminal justice system works. Because we tend to have an incorrect understanding of that system, we tend to have unrealistic expectations. Unrealistic expectations always lead to disappointment. If we want to have more realistic expectations, it may help to look at how this system actually works.

Criminal Justice 101
It’s commonly believed that our criminal justice system is a process where someone who commits a crime is arrested, sent to trial and if convicted, sent to jail. Therefore, what we want to see is their arrest, since we assume that the outcome of an arrest will be a prison sentence.

Arrest & Arraignment
Depending on the nature of the crime and the jurisdiction involved, a host of other procedures can take place when someone enters the criminal justice system. If, for example, a person commits a robbery, if a complaint is made by the victim, a police report is written and a local prosecutor is notified. If the suspect has been apprehended, they’re booked into jail and fingerprinted. The next step is an arraignment. At the arraignment, the charge is read to the suspect and they’re allowed to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty or no contest. A judge, magistrate or justice of the peace determines if they’ll be detained or released while they await the next step in the process.

Probable Cause Determination
In the US, the 5th amendment provides assurance that a suspect will not face a serious charge without being indicted by a Grand Jury. A Grand Jury’s role is to determine if there is probable cause to warrant a criminal trial. For a Grand Jury, probable cause is the belief that a crime has been committed and that the suspect is the one who committed it. Probable cause is easier to determine than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Guilt beyondreasonable doubt is the standard that must be met if the case goes to trial. When a case is heard by a Grand Jury, a witness (usually a law enforcement officer) describes the alleged crime and evidence is presented that may help the members of the jury determine if probable cause exists.

The suspect is usually not allowed to appear at a proceeding where probable cause is determined because their guilt or innocence is not in question. Probable cause proceedings help the prosecution determine if their case is strong enough to go to trial. If a Grand Jury votes to indict a suspect, a prosecutor can be reasonably confident of the strength of their case. If an indictment is not obtained, the prosecutor knows they must obtain more evidence or witness testimony before they move the case forward. In some jurisdictions, a preliminary hearing may be held instead of empaneling a Grand Jury. A suspect may also waive their right to a probable cause determination

Once an indictment has been obtained, the prosecutor and a judge choose the next step. If a suspect is at large, a summons may be issued, asking the suspect to appear in court. Alternatively, a warrant may be issued which allows a law enforcement agency to arrest the suspect and hold them to face charges. If a suspect is currently in custody, a supervening indictment may be issued which replaces other legal actions that may be active in the criminal justice system.

Pleading a Case
Once an indictment has been obtained, a suspect becomes a defendant. At this point, if they want to avoid a criminal trial where they may face serious charges, they may choose to enter into an agreement with the prosecutor to have a serious charge dropped while pleading guilty to a lesser charge. If, for example, a defendant is a member of a large financial fraud ring, the prosecutor may offer sentencing reduction or immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony leading to the arrest of the ringleaders.

I’ve learned a great deal about the criminal justice system by speaking with County attorneys where I live. In Maricopa County, Arizona, about 95% of felony cases go before a Grand Jury. Since criminal jury trials are expensive and time-consuming, an indictment is generally used by prosecutors to negotiate a plea deal. If a defendant refuses a plea deal, a date is set for a criminal trial. About 90% of felony cases in our county never go to trial.

What I would like to note is that a plea agreement occurs well into the criminal justice process, long after an arrest has been made and immediately before a trial date is set. Allow me to state that differently:

If someone is in the process of negotiating a plea deal with those who are investigating their crimes, that individual has in some sense of the word, already been “arrested,” even if the media hasn’t reported that an arrest has happened.

Let that sink in for a minute.

We know without question that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s crimes have come before a Grand Jury. McCabe’s case is already making its way through the criminal justice system even though we haven’t seen him perp walked.

We also know that Former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker has made a deal with prosecutors and is providing testimony to investigators about criminal activities of former members of the Obama administration. Baker’s case is well past the “arrest” phase, even though the news has not shown him being perp walked.

Former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is likewise cooperating with investigators concerning criminal activity that happened during Obama’s term in office. In keeping with DOJ policy concerning cooperating witnesses, Ohr has been demoted and is still employed by the Department of Justice while he continues to provide evidence and testimony.

FBI Counterintelligence head Bill Priestap is likely in the same boat as Bruce Ohr, although almost nothing has been leaked (yet) about his cooperation with investigators.

Former FBI Attorney Lisa Page and Agent Peter Strzok cooperated with the investigation into criminal activities during the Obama administration. Both have been dismissed from their jobs. We don’t know the details of the deals they struck with prosecutors but long ago they passed the “arrest” phase of the criminal justice process.

Look at the number of people who have been removed from power in the FBI & DOJ in the last 2 years. Many are cooperating with prosecutors who are investigating corruption. It should be obvious that many high-level deep state players have long passed the arrest phase of the criminal justice process even though the mainstream media has convinced you their arrests haven’t happened yet.

You want to see the perp walk.
They know it and they’re not going to give you what you want.
You can’t always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes…
You just might find…
You get what you need.

p.s. I believe many arrests of powerful people are coming in the near future. I believe some of those arrests will be public. This article is intended to offer a glimmer of hope to those who believe no prosecution has been accomplished whatsoever.

qanon general statement praying medic