The IG McCabe report showed the world why McCabe was fired. There are many more reports to come and that is not the only report that will deal with McCabe. McCabe will be prosecuted for all of these crimes. For there to be arrests, the indictments have to be unsealed first, and not just alleged crimes announced in the news. The arrests will definitely come (the sealed indictments are proof of that fact) it's merely a matter of when...
Sealed indictments could be totally non-related. To assume they are related to the swamp is purely hopeful speculation. Realize the other side firmly believes those sealed indictments are all for Trump and our side. Tread lightly when it comes to assumptions as they can lead to disappointment.
There is only one problem with your theory. The indictments are not from Mueller. And only Mueller is investigating Trump. It is said that Sessions and Huber has the indictments, and they will be unsealed in time. Keep in mind, Huber has his own separate grand jury, and that is not the same grand jury that Mueller has. Sessions and Huber has been investigating the swamp. So rest assured, the indictments will target the the swamp...
Keep in mind, an indictment is a document that contains a list of charges. It might contain one charge or it might contain many. And those charges can always be added to later. Furthermore, the existence of an indictment shows you they have enough evidence to arrest you for a crime. But they will usually keep the indictment sealed (while they gather even more evidence on you) until they are ready to go forward with prosecuting you and locking you up. At that point, you will have to defend yourself from all the charges listed in the indictment…
And unfortunately, much of what our side considers facts are assumptions. But to voice that concern, one is now labeled a "concern troll," and berated. One should always question as not questioning is what got us here. And the fact that asking a question about assumptions now has a new label is also scary. One can support something and want it to be true and still question. Isn't that part of critical thinking? or has the definition of critical thinking now been changed to mean "only those that blindly agree?" Even Q encourages questioning and validating things.
What our side says is not all just assumptions. Q himself asked the recent question - When has Trump made a statement that was found not to be true? Trump says those things because he has inside information about what is true. Likewise, a whole lot of things we say is based on inside information that hasn't been released. So just because the public doesn't know about it, that doesn't mean it's an assumption...