Many things are not even exposed but try and be buried

"So why isn't this being busted"

In order to monopolize power and profit the office of "prosecutor" had to be taken from The People (as a whole) and then only those (on the wrong side) have the power to prosecute.

This is very well documented, but very hard to find. I've been looking for decades.

Examples:

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Page 3

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

"But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."

The Key here to prosecuting the worst criminals (those in office) is independence, equal footing, and the right to indict the worst criminals as a natural right. The First Amendment (a natural right, not a right "given" to people by "authorities) is the right to indict the worst criminals, not the right to say unpopular words.

It was a hard battle to destroy the natural rights of Americans, but the criminals in power managed to get this far in over 200 years.

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

That is a key point concerning the difference between a Civil and a Criminal case. A civil case involves private individuals and no one else: none of your business. A Criminal case involves a clear and present danger warranting (probable cause) a CAUSE OF ACTION in defense against a known threat by an enemy of The People (as a whole) foreign or domestic. So...someone "plea bargaining" with a "Felon" (once upon a time a Felon was "at war with society" and that means an incorrigible "outlaw" who deserves capital punishment because there is no other reasonable option when dealing with psychopaths, sociopaths, or those who are "at war with society" felons) - so someone plea bargaining with someone at war with society - would be a clear and present danger to soceity themselves, aiding, abetting, supporting, someone at war with soceity: an act of treason.

If not an act of treason then at least:
Nonfeasance
Misfeasance
Malfeasance
Misprision of Justice
Misprision of Felony
or
Misprision of TREASON

It was learned a long time ago that in order to monopolize power and provit your gang had to counterfeit government so as to then control it and use it to reach the desired goal.

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property."

The People have the law power for defense against government "over-reach" (treason) in America to this day, if people are able to state their case before an independent jury.

That is considered The Shield of The Law Power (common law, with trial by jury, see Bill of Rights, etc.).

The Sword of The Law Power is commanded by Independent Private Prosecutors. Where are they?

1994 Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments Renée B. Lettow
"Although historians typically portray early federal grand juries as mere tools of the central government, an examination of actual charges and presentments reveals a different picture. After the Constitution's ratification, grand jurors continued to take initiative in making presentments.
Given that the Federalists wanted to assuage Anti-Federalist fears of a powerful central government, it is not surprising that ratification documents emphasized the grand jury's shield rather than its sword. Early post ratification charges to and writings about the federal grand jury, however, reveal an equal if not greater concern for the sword. Without fail, judges and justices reminded grand jurors of their oaths to make diligent inquiries and true presentments." Indeed, judges mentioned presentments more often than indictments. In his charge to the first grand jury impaneled for the Circuit Court for the district of Delaware, Justice Wilson urged grand jurors: "[Y]ou will be sedulous that criminals be discovered and punished, and you will be equally sedulous that the innocent be guarded and protected. With regard to both, it will be your zealous effort, as it is your unquestionable right, to make diligent enquiries, and to offer true presentments. In a lecture to students at the University of Pennsylvania, the Justice emphasized the grand jury's independence from the prosecutor:
[Grand jurors] are not appointed for the procecutor [sic] or for the court: they are appointed for the government and for the people: and of both the government and people it is surely the concernment, that ... all crimes, whether given or not given in charge, whether described or not described with professional skill, should receive the punishment, which the law denounces .... "

See also:

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787