Before we risk blood shed we should try Justice Scalia's remedy:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the landmark case of United States v. Williams, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1992), that:

"...the grand jury under our Constitution does not belong to any of the three branches of government, but instead to We the People. As a result, the citizenry are empowered to empanel grand juries, indict, try, convict and mete out sentences for those accused of crimes.

Justice Scalia says that Citizen Grand Juries are as much a right as our right to keep and bear arms, or peacefully assemble. But for now only six States (377 counties) recognized that right: (Oklahoma (77), Nebraska (93), New Mexico (33), North Dakota (53), Nevada (16), and Kansas (105) allow citizens to circulate a petition in their own county to order a Judge to impanel a grand jury in their County and then but out.

Read Justice Scalia's opinion and realize the poterntial power We The People have to deal with the traitors who hijacked our government.

No need for gun fire just the rule of law, no wonder Justice Scalia loved it so.

Here are paragraph 18, 19, and 20, in plain text - I took out all the legal citations to make it easier to read, but you can follow the link below and get your own free e-copy of Justice Scalia's landmark ruling.
18

“[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ” ‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’ In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office.

19

The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses, and deliberates in total secrecy.

20

True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. And the court will refuse to lend its assistance when the compulsion the grand jury seeks would override rights accorded by the Constitution, or even testimonial privileges recognized by the common law. Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain “free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it. Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s “constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge ‘.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the landmark case of United States v. Williams, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1992),

Archived at Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/36

They will say that the Citizens Grand Jury is impotent or ineffectual - what else would you expect them to say?