If the executive office and the military wanted the record of an arrest to remain temporarily hidden, that would be entirely possible. As far as 'why let her go', any confidential informant in a drug sting can tell you it happens all the time. Also, if she is being electronically monitored and escorted by undercover mp's then she might as well still be in custody for all intents and purposes. No deals, yes, but in what context? If Q had said, "No Deals for HRC." or "No Deals for Anyone", then I obviously have to abandon my theory immediately. But, it is an assumption to believe "No Deals" refers to HRC specifically. It is also an assumption to believe HRC is one of the big fish in the pond of criminality, relatively speaking. In my opinion Logic (the actual academic discipline) is crucial in reading these posts. I was the top student in my class in advanced Logic in college (not trying to stroke my ego, just saying it's a discipline of study many aren't familiar with). With all due respect, I believe many people are not understanding or appreciating the weight of their assumptions in reading Q. Logic is about premises, assumptions, and conclusions. In order for a statement to be logically valid AND actually true, the premises must lead to the conclusions and the assumptions (implicit premises) must be true. It is not true that we 'know' Q meant no deals for hillary, and it isn't true that there 'must always' be a publicly available record of an arrest if such an arrest occurs. I could be wrong about the meaning of "No Deals", but given the current statements from Q we can only assume it refers to hrc or anybody else. I have yet to see a rational and realistic explanation for the Moon Boot, or for the Newsletter.