Sonya Wimberly Hawkins says she almost died giving birth, a medical trauma that made Black maternal health deeply personal. Now the Democratic nominee for Georgia Senate District 16 joins XVOA to explain why she entered politics and how she plans to challenge Republican incumbent Marty Harbin.

The conversation widens from maternal health to Georgia Power bills, data centers and water, religious freedom and voting access. What begins with one woman’s survival becomes a larger test of whether the economic pressure facing working families can crack a deeply entrenched Republican seat.

Learn more about Sonya Wimberly Hawkins’s campaign:https://campaigntoelectsonyawimberly.com/

Support independent XVOA reporting with a paid subscription:https://www.xplisset.com/subscribe

If a subscription is not workable, support XVOA directly:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/xplisset

WHO DO YOU TURN THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN TO?600 Searches and the Flock Surveillance Machine

Marci Bakely said a police officer who later became chief seemed to know whenever she went to the grocery store, the doctor or a date. Public logs eventually showed roughly 600 database queries involving plates associated with Bakely and her teenage daughter across about thirteen months, many between midnight and 4 a.m.

A Washington Post investigation identified at least 50 officers charged with or accused of misusing license-plate readers. Forty-six cases involved Flock Safety. Twenty-six involved women in the officers’ intimate lives or women they wanted to pursue. This XVOA Intelligence Report follows the deeper danger: personal obsession borrowing the eyes and reach of the state while responsibility scatters among the officer, supervisor, chief, department and vendor.

The full Reader’s Cut and complete source list are at https://www.xplisset.com

XVOA is supported first through paid subscriptions:https://www.xplisset.com/subscribe

If a recurring subscription does not fit, Buy Me a Coffee is the backup:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/xplisset

RECEIPTS

• The Washington Post investigation - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/02/how-police-officers-used-vast-network-cameras-spy-their-exes/• Georgia Bureau of Investigation - https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2025-11-19/gbi-arrests-braselton-police-chief-harassment-and-stalking• Flock Safety’s federal-access statement - https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/does-flock-share-data-with-ice• University of Washington Center for Human Rights - https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/• Washington’s Driver Privacy Act - https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6002-S.SL.pdf

I HATE THE NEWS: THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO MANAGE IT. THEY TRIED TO OWN IT.

I Hate The News is XVOA’s weekly cultural autopsy. This week’s charge: institutions trusted to manage public power started acting like they owned it.

The Five Ways covers Trump’s reach into election administration, immigrant detention, five-figure visa bonds, Medicare Part D premiums, and Enbridge’s trespass on Bad River land.

Then we move through media archives, Live Nation, BTS and the Grammys, Betye Saar, FIFA, women’s college athletes organizing, and WNBA player recovery time.

Full Reader’s Cut and all 26 sources:

[PASTE PUBLISHED READER’S CUT URL]

Keep XVOA operating:

Paid: https://www.xplisset.com/subscribe

Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/xplisset

$300 remains in the immediate gap. Fifty dollars a day keeps the pain away.

Thank you Charmaine 🇦🇺, Jairo, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

I spent twenty years working county patrol. I am a Black veteran and a retired cop, which means I know how quickly one sentence can shape an entire use-of-force case before the public sees the evidence. In Biddeford, Maine, that sentence was that a man had “weaponized his vehicle.”

Those words carry a complete verdict inside them. They give the officer a threat, the shooting a justification, and the dead man a role before investigators have reconstructed the scene. A phrase can be technically possible and still arrive far too early. That is why I slowed the available cellphone footage to half speed and asked the questions any competent investigation should ask.

For anyone who cannot watch the video or processes evidence better on the page, the essential record and six-part tactical timeline are here.

TLDR

* An ICE officer fatally shot a man in Biddeford on July 13. Local reporting and national wire coverage place the encounter shortly after 7:20 a.m., followed by an FBI-led response and state involvement. ⁠[1] ⁠[2]

* DHS says the vehicle tried to flee and created a public-safety threat. The department said ICE was watching an address connected to a final removal order when agents attempted to stop a vehicle leaving that location. ⁠[3]

* The official target story changed during the day. Senator Angus King initially relayed that the man was the subject of the enforcement action, then said Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin clarified that he was not the target. ⁠[4]

* The agents apparently had no body-camera footage. King said the officers were not wearing body cameras, leaving civilian video, physical evidence, witness accounts, and any vehicle-mounted or surveillance footage with even greater importance. ⁠[2]

* The cellphone clip is important but incomplete. It shows a white sedan moving through an intersection while several agents move beside and behind it. It does not show the initial stop, the reported vehicle impacts, the gunfire, or the precise position of the shooter when the trigger was pulled. ⁠[1]

If this evidence-first work matters to you, Restack this article, share it, and send it to one person who needs the full record. The first way to keep XVOA working is to ⁠become a paid subscriber.

If a subscription is not the right fit today, ⁠Buy Me a Coffee is the backstop.

Video Chapters

* 0:00 · Retired Cop Speaks Out

* 0:43 · What Happened in Biddeford, Maine

* 1:43 · How “Weaponized Vehicle” Frames the Story

* 3:22 · Four Confirmed Facts

* 3:58 · The NBC News Account

* 4:34 · Breaking Down the Witness Statement

* 7:06 · Immigration Status and Deadly Force

* 8:27 · Cellphone Video: Frame-by-Frame Analysis

* 13:04 · Reading the Aftermath Footage

* 15:25 · Maine Wire Reports From the Scene

* 18:00 · Six-Step Tactical Timeline

* 20:38 · The Silence of Other Retired Cops

* 23:34 · What the Video Proves

* 24:48 · What the FBI Must Release

* 26:21 · Closing VerdictFour Facts Before the Argument

The first fact is the hardest and simplest: a federal immigration officer shot and killed a man during an enforcement encounter in Biddeford. Advocacy organizations described him as a 26-year-old man from Colombia with work authorization and a Social Security number. ⁠[2]

The second fact is that the purpose of the operation and the identity of its intended target became confused in public. DHS said agents were surveilling the last known address of a person with a final removal order. Later reporting said the man who was killed was not the person agents had set out to arrest. ⁠[3] ⁠[4]

The third fact is that the investigation crosses institutional lines. Governor Janet Mills said Maine State Police were supporting the attorney general, chief medical examiner, and federal officials. ⁠[5] The FBI responded, while Biddeford police limited their role to scene security.

The fourth fact is that the public record is still missing the decisive seconds. Initial information attributed to the Maine attorney general’s office said the man attempted to flee “in the direction of the officer” and was fatally shot. The officer was placed on administrative leave under standard procedure. ⁠[6] That account matters, but it remains an initial account. Direction, distance, speed, angle, cover, escape routes, and officer-created positioning will determine what those words mean.

What “Weaponized His Vehicle” Does

A vehicle can absolutely be used as a deadly weapon. I have stood in roads, approached occupied cars, and watched drivers make decisions that could kill somebody in a heartbeat. Any analysis that pretends otherwise is unserious.

The professional question begins one step later: Was this particular vehicle creating an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury at the instant deadly force was used? That requires more than a label. It requires geometry.

Where was the officer? Which direction were his feet and body facing? Was the car accelerating, turning, braking, or boxed in? Did the officer have a safe avenue of movement? Had federal vehicles created the path the sedan followed? How many shots were fired, from what positions, and through which parts of the car?

“Weaponized” compresses all of those questions into one emotionally loaded word. It moves the audience from investigation to conclusion before the collision reconstruction, ballistics, and complete video have arrived. The government gets to make its claim. It does not get to skip the proof.

The Witness Account Is Evidence, Not a Verdict

NBC relayed an account from a nearby witness who said he heard sounds like firecrackers around 7:30 a.m. and looked outside. According to that account, a larger vehicle rammed a smaller one more than once. He then saw officers remove a bleeding man from the car and heard the wounded man say, “I tried to stop.” Reuters later identified a witness, Daniel Boucher, who gave a substantially similar account. ⁠[2]

That testimony deserves attention because it speaks to events before the circulating clip. It also has limits. A witness looking from a building has one angle and may enter the event after it begins. “I tried to stop” is haunting, but it cannot independently establish what happened seconds earlier.

Investigators can map his position, recreate his sight line, and compare the reported ramming with vehicle damage, tire marks, debris, and surveillance footage. A credible witness gives investigators a road to the evidence. He does not replace the road.

Frame by Frame: What the Cellphone Video Shows

The vertical cellphone clip lasts several seconds before replaying the same movement in a tighter crop. It depicts one short action twice, first wide and then enlarged.

In the visible sequence, a small white sedan travels through an intersection. Several agents move alongside or behind it, and at least one appears close enough to reach toward the vehicle. The clip gives us relative motion and officer placement during that slice of time.

At half speed, the central question becomes sharper: who was trapped in the sedan’s unavoidable path during the visible sequence? The clip supplies no clean answer because the officers remain mobile and the camera obscures depth and distance.

The clip also begins too late to resolve the shooting. We do not see the first attempted stop, the commands, the reported impacts, or the driver’s initial response. We do not see muzzle flashes or the shooter’s body position at the instant of fire. We cannot use later officer movement to manufacture certainty about an earlier trigger decision.

The video can confirm or challenge a future official timeline by establishing locations, direction of travel, and agent movement. It raises questions strong enough to demand the complete record, while remaining too narrow to carry a final verdict by itself.

What the Aftermath Adds

The aftermath footage shows the white sedan near the intersection and a man on the pavement as officers cluster around him. Medical equipment is visible, while federal vehicles obstruct much of the response.

The footage establishes that aid activity occurred. Timing, treatment, and restraint questions require synchronized dispatch records, radio traffic, medical reports, and witness recordings.

The Maine Wire field report later showed a forensic tent and described FBI personnel moving through the scene while local police handled preservation and traffic duties. That is what should happen after a fatal federal shooting: secure the location, separate witnesses, preserve vehicles, document every cartridge casing, and prevent the first narrative from hardening into the only narrative.

The Six-Step Tactical Timeline

A serious review must rebuild the entire encounter. DHS policy limits deadly force to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and directs scrutiny toward reasonable alternatives when vehicles are involved. ⁠[7] ICE’s directive supplies the agency-level framework for comparing policy with conduct. ⁠[8]

* Operational purpose and target identity. Who were agents assigned to locate, what legal authority did they possess, and when did they realize the driver was not the intended target?

* Identification and commands. What marked vehicles, lights, clothing, verbal commands, or signals told the driver that federal officers were ordering him to stop? Were commands audible and consistent?

* Vehicle contact. Which vehicle made the first contact? How many impacts occurred, at what speeds, and what damage patterns support each account?

* Officer placement. Where did each agent position himself before the sedan moved? Did anyone step into or remain in a travel path that had a reasonable avenue of escape?

* The trigger moment. Who fired, how many rounds were discharged, and what did each shooter face at that instant? Bullet trajectories through the windshield, doors, or side glass can help establish relative positions.

* Post-shooting conduct. How quickly did officers call for medical aid, remove the driver, begin treatment, apply restraints, and preserve the scene?

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Barnes v. Felix rejected examining only a frozen “moment of threat” while ignoring relevant preceding events. Reasonableness requires the totality of the circumstances. ⁠[9]

Every tactical mistake does not make a later shot unlawful. It does mean planning, positioning, escalation, and the actual threat belong in the same reconstruction.

Retirement Was Supposed to Free Our Tongues

I digress for a moment because this part burns me. I keep waiting for more retired officers to speak plainly when official language runs ahead of public evidence. We took the same classes, worked the same roads, wrote the same reports, and learned how one loaded phrase can quietly decide what the audience believes.

Retirement should free a cop’s conscience. Nobody is threatening your shift assignment. Nobody is holding your promotion. Nobody can stick you on permanent midnight patrol because you questioned a federal agency’s first account.

Yet too many people leave the job and carry the blue wall home with them like a piece of department property. If our experience only serves power after we retire, then it was never public service. It was membership. I will not declare this shooting unjustified on incomplete evidence, and I will not bless it with the same incomplete evidence. The obligation is to ask the professional questions out loud.

What the FBI Must Release

The FBI and every cooperating agency should publish a synchronized timeline built from dispatch audio, radio traffic, 911 calls, civilian recordings, surveillance cameras, vehicle data, and any federal video that exists. The public needs a diagram showing every vehicle and officer at each critical point. Investigators should identify when the surveillance team shifted into a vehicle stop and what information agents had about the driver.

The physical evidence must answer the geometry. Release vehicle damage, bullet trajectories, cartridge locations, tire marks, and final positions when doing so will no longer compromise the case. Explain how each trajectory aligns with the officers’ accounts.

The agencies must explain the absence of body cameras, including when equipment was ordered and what interim recording rules applied. A federal operation with the power to stop, seize, and kill cannot treat documentation as optional.

Finally, release the operational plan and the legal basis for the attempted stop, with necessary personal information redacted. The public record now indicates the man killed was not the intended target. That makes the transition from surveillance to confrontation a central part of the case rather than background noise.

Closing Argument

Here is where the evidence stands. An ICE officer shot and killed a man during an enforcement operation. The government says the vehicle attempted to flee and moved in a direction that endangered an officer or the public. A witness described federal vehicles ramming the smaller car, and the available cellphone video shows agents moving around a sedan but omits the shooting itself.

The footage proves movement, proximity, and a chaotic pursuit, but it cannot establish the exact threat facing the shooter. Changing official information, absent body cameras, and missing decisive seconds deepen the need for disclosure.

My verdict is therefore disciplined rather than comfortable: the public evidence cannot yet sustain a final judgment on whether the shooting was legally justified, but it more than sustains a demand for skepticism, preservation, and full disclosure. “Weaponized his vehicle” is a claim. The investigation must show its work.

The standard remains the same for a citizen, an immigrant with work authorization, or the subject of a removal order. Immigration status does not lower the threshold for deadly force. The badge does not raise a claim above examination.

Support XVOA

If you want a retired cop willing to examine the evidence without carrying water for an agency or a political tribe, ⁠become a paid XVOA subscriber.

Paid subscriptions are the first ask because they keep this work independent, consistent, and available to readers who cannot afford to pay. Thank you to every current paid supporter already holding up this desk.

If a subscription is not the right fit, ⁠Buy Me a Coffee supports the daily operating floor. Fifty dollars a day keeps the pain away. Like the video, comment with the exact evidence that shaped your view, share this article, and Restack it so the public record travels farther than the first official phrase.

Sources

* ⁠Portland Press Herald: Live updates on the fatal ICE-involved shooting in BiddefordLocal reporting, witness accounts, scene developments, and the circulating cellphone video.

* ⁠Reuters: One person killed in encounter with U.S. immigration agents in MaineReporting on the fatal encounter, Daniel Boucher’s witness account, the FBI response, and the reported lack of body cameras.

* ⁠Associated Press: ICE shot and killed a motorist in MaineReporting on DHS’s public account, the surveillance operation, the man described by advocates, and the investigations.

* ⁠The Guardian: Man killed by ICE was not the target of the operationUpdated reporting on Senator Angus King’s correction and DHS’s description of the attempted stop.

* ⁠Governor Janet Mills: Statement on the fatal shooting in BiddefordThe governor’s official account of state, medical examiner, attorney general, and federal cooperation.

* ⁠The Wall Street Journal: Federal immigration agents involved in fatal shooting in MaineReporting on the initial account attributed to the Maine attorney general’s office and the officer’s administrative leave.

* ⁠Department of Homeland Security: Policy on the Use of ForceDepartment-wide standards governing deadly force and force directed at moving vehicles.

* ⁠U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Use of Force PolicyICE’s agency-level directive governing authorized force, reporting, and review.

* ⁠Supreme Court of the United States: Barnes v. FelixThe Court’s 2025 decision requiring excessive-force reasonableness to be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.

HTTP://www.xplisset.com for transcripts and sources as well as membership and paid support options

Thank you Steward Beckham, Chris Davis Proud, Lisa Dekker, Donna Everett, babyangel, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Also if you hadn’t noticed by the sudden surge in post lately, my furnace is working again so I want to show my gratitude towards all those who wished me well. To be honest I wasn’t freezing over. There was a gas fireplace as well as portable electric heaters to at least keep the place 40-55 degrees its just that I cannot write much less think under those conditions. Again, thank you all for your patience and well wishes.

Transcript

00:00–00:01 | Going Live (Backstage)

Xplisset: Okay. We should be live on the Substack side. You see it?

(Check)

Xplisset: Yep. We’re live. We’re good to go.

⸻

00:01–00:02 | Opening

Xplisset: Good morning. This is XVOA, Explicit Voice of America, and I am Explicit.

If you came here for noise, you’re in the wrong place.

If you came here for clarity, welcome. You’re home.

Hit that like button on Substack and YouTube. Share this stream.

And don’t hesitate to come and chat, especially if you’re on YouTube.

Today is plain. It’s simple.

We’re going to start with Don Lemon because it’s the story.

Then we’re going to do a fast scan of the morning headlines.

Then I’m going to bring in a special guest, Stuart Beckham. He has his own Substack. He is a journalist.

So we’re going to get a journalist read on current events and what’s going on.

Then if anybody’s up to it, we’re going to open the phones.

So you’re going to be able to call in and express your opinion, your thoughts.

⸻

00:02–00:05 | Don Lemon Updates

Xplisset: First, we’re going to start off with some Don Lemon updates here.

Here is what’s being reported as of this morning.

Multiple outlets report Lemon was arrested in Los Angeles. You all are aware of that.

This is for a protest at a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, later this month.

Reporting also says he was charged under federal statutes including 18 U.S.C. 241 and the FACE Act, with Lemon and his attorney framing it as constitutionally protected journalism.

The The Guardian reports he was released after custody, and the case has already become a press freedom flashpoint with backlash from press advocates and political leaders.

Now, let me say this plain, clean.

You don’t have to like Don Lemon. You don’t have to agree with him. You don’t have to ever watch him on TV.

But you should care about the signal that this sends.

When a journalist’s work can be framed as criminal interference, that message travels.

It travels to every reporter.

It travels to every freelancer.

It travels to every person holding a camera who doesn’t have some kind of corporate legal team behind them.

And I’m going to be honest. In a normal country, this would not feel normal.

The feeling you’re experiencing is kind of like data.

⸻

00:04–00:06 | Substack Essay (The Thesis)

Xplisset: Now, I just put out a Substack post this morning entitled A Coordinated Mind F-word in Plain Sight. They’re not hiding the truth, they’re drowning you in it.

So basically, the premise is that this is not a cover-up.

The problem is that there’s a modern move to overload the public until the nervous system collapses.

That’s when people stop asking what’s true and start asking what team am I on.

That’s the environment. That’s the water we’re swimming in.

And yes, somewhere around 2015, it seems like that water changed.

The smartphone stopped being a tool and it became the room.

And some of us have been emotionally living in that room ever since.

⸻

00:06–00:10 | Quick Headline Scan

Xplisset: So let me do a quick headline scan. Let’s talk about what’s in the headlines. Then we’re going to go over to our guest.

Headline: Government funding

Associated Press is reporting this morning that the Senate passed a Trump-backed funding deal to keep most of the government funded through September, with Homeland Security carved out for a temporary extension while Congress debates restrictions tied to immigration raids.

So what does all that mean? The fight is not over, it’s just scheduled.

Headline: Protest temperature

The Guardian is reporting more than 300 anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests are planned across the country this weekend amid anger over deaths tied to federal immigration agents.

Reuters also reported thousands demonstrating and broader nationwide actions tied to the same wave of outrage.

Not just politics, y’all. This is about legitimacy.

Headline: The Fed, power, pressure

Reuters is out with a piece on Kevin Warsh, the individual who’s up for nomination as the Fed chief. This is sort of “regime change” around the U.S. central bank.

Look, the economy is not just numbers right now. It’s a battlefield for control. Trump wants control of the Fed. He wants his own personal money printing machine.

I’m not an economist, but you can imagine where that ends.

Headline: International escalation

The U.S. is stepping up pressure on Iran over its nuclear program with Trump warning and signaling military posture.

Reuters also reported a deadly explosion at Iran’s port.

Keep one eye on overseas volatility because it always has a way of ricocheting back into domestic politics.

Headline: Tech money and bravado

Reuters is reporting Nvidia’s CEO talking about planned investment and denying friction with OpenAI.

My translation: the AI economy keeps spinning while the public is still trying to learn how to walk inside of it.

All right, enough of that. Just a quick scan.

We’re gonna bring in a journalist so we can talk mechanics and not just vibes.

⸻

00:10–00:12 | Bringing on the Guest

Xplisset: Stewart Beckham. How’s it going?

I appreciate you being here. I apologize for being late. I got a lot of buttons here. Setup is reversed from yesterday because of the mirror effect thing. The first video came out kind of weird.

I wrote an essay this morning. Didn’t have time to work on this script, so I’m juggling a lot at once.

And you know when you’re a writer, you take time to find your words. Improvisation is new to me.

For folks who don’t know you, go ahead and give a quick intro.

⸻

00:12–00:13 | Guest Intro

Stewart Beckham: My name is Steward Beckham . I write the Substack Stew On This.

It uncovers different current events through the lens of historical and cultural analysis.

I talk about a current event, then connect it to a larger historical through line so we don’t look at shocking events as completely new or out of bounds of what’s happened before.

Sometimes that gives us a key for understanding how we can solve or at least understand what’s happening by looking at history.

⸻

00:13–00:18 | Steward’s Take on Don Lemon

Xplisset: How are you reading what happened to Don Lemon yesterday? Give me your take.

Stewart Beckham: Don Lemon was arrested via U.S. Department of Justice action connected to a grand jury indictment. The premise is that he was involved in an organized attempt to obstruct the civil rights of a religious organization in Minnesota.

The protests in Minneapolis have been around the surge of ICE officers and the killings of Renee Goode and Alex Preddy. Don Lemon went to cover and tape the protest and interviewed a church member, reportedly a pastor who is also tied to ICE leadership.

This opens space for narrative manipulation. There’s debate because the federal appeals court did not compel the local court to comply with a warrant to arrest Lemon, and when DOJ couldn’t work through the court system, they used a grand jury indictment as another mechanism to obtain an arrest warrant.

Some argue: if the appellate courts wouldn’t move it before, the case isn’t compelling enough and sets a chilling precedent.

Others argue: it’s private property and Lemon and protesters were trespassing, which is true, but it can obscure the larger legal argument.

DOJ is arguing the protesters infringed on civil rights of church parishioners under the FACE Act, with historical connections to the Ku Klux Klan Act from Reconstruction, meant to limit conspiratorial attempts to violate civil rights.

People sympathetic to Lemon say he’s a journalist, press freedom applies, speech applies, and assembly applies. There’s also the point that a church leader is connected to ICE, raising a “melding of state and religious power” concern.

And as your piece pointed out, in algorithm-driven news, we get a trailer instead of the movie. We get the most action-packed narrative pieces, not the full mechanics.

⸻

00:18–00:23 | Reconstruction Echoes + Legal Gray Areas

Xplisset: I’m hearing echoes of Reconstruction and the civil rights era where DOJ had to circumvent local authorities obstructing enforcement.

Stewart Beckham: Yes. These civil rights arguments were built out of that struggle after the Civil War. Over time, civil rights arguments expanded to religious minorities, sexual minorities, marginalized gender groups, and more.

So there’s an argument that you cannot infringe on the rights of a religious group trying to worship.

But we have to follow how far the federal government can argue that Lemon and others infringed on civil rights in a conspiratorial premeditated manner.

⸻

00:23–00:26 | Framing Tricks in Coverage

Xplisset: Are you sensing framing tricks in the coverage?

Stewart Beckham: Yes. The framing has been diluted into pro-Trump and anti-Trump.

Pro-administration framing says DOJ is protecting civil rights and freedom to worship.

Anti-administration framing says DOJ bypassed the judiciary system, got a grand jury indictment, and is sending a chilling message to journalists, from Substackers to legacy media, that they’re at risk of costly legal experiences if coverage is deemed unfair.

⸻

00:26–00:32 | “Is This New?” Historical Through Line

Xplisset: Is this new? People are acting like it’s the first time journalists were threatened. I think of McCarthy, Nixon, Watergate, Ellsberg.

Stewart Beckham: Sadly no, it’s a common thread. Nixon’s DOJ intimidation, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, intimidation apparatuses. Even earlier, after the Fugitive Slave Act, administrations intimidated abolitionists and reporting about free Black people being taken south.

⸻

00:32–00:44 | ICE, Abolition, and the “Aftermath Problem”

Xplisset: Since you brought up ICE, I think we need to consider abolishing the agency.

I’m law enforcement, 20 years. Our training was intensive. It took over a year to get hired. Close supervision for nine months.

It baffles me to see people with that kind of power get 47 days of training and get cut loose.

But here’s the “but.” If you abolish the agency, what do you do with tens of thousands of men proficient with weapons? Do they disappear into the sunset?

It reminds me of after Appomattox. Confederates went home, then became insurgents in white militias.

Much like Iraq when fighters were disarmed and told to go home, they became the insurgency.

Stuart Beckham: That’s a fair line of questioning. It connects to the algorithmic stew you’ve been describing.

ICE is a relatively new organization formed after 9/11 under the Patriot Act and DHS creation, built to be politically manipulated by an executive willing to exploit its powers.

There’s a credible argument ICE isn’t professionalized like other law enforcement institutions.

But the difficult proposition is whether the agency is too embedded, too armed, too resourced to dismantle cleanly without creating instability.

You’re faced with two options: restructure and hope it’s possible, or dismantle and risk a sustained insurgency dynamic.

And we also have to remember extremism precedents and the broader militia movement history in the U.S.

⸻

00:44–00:50 | Personal Reflection: Police, Polarization, and “Who Backs You Up”

Xplisset: There were January 6 United States Capitol attack people who were police officers off duty participating. I know this personally.

One reason I retired early was thinking, you never know who might be coming to back you up.

After COVID, people started expressing political opinions more openly. Losing friends on Facebook over comments. A sea change. Conservatives became even more conservative.

Stewart Beckham: Digital media accelerates escalation and entrenchment. Social media heats up the larger stew. There’s an ongoing doom loop that can cloud critical thinking.

⸻

00:48–00:51 | Where to Find Stewart

Xplisset: Where can people find you?

Stewart Beckham: StuOnThis.com. I’m also on Bluesky and YouTube. Substack is the easiest platform: StuOnThis.com.

Xplisset: Appreciate you. People go check out his Substack. Well written, brief, concise. I envy that.

Thank you for showing up.

⸻

00:50–01:02 | Post-Interview: Comment Reading + Real-Time Notes

Xplisset: We’re not done yet.

Plan was to take incoming calls, but I don’t think I’ve tested that system out enough yet.

Yes, I do have an 800 number. I do have a way for you to call in and interact, but technically I don’t think we’re ready for that yet.

So instead we’re going to read some of the comments here to my latest article on Substack, entitled A Coordinated Mind F-word in Plain Sight.

Xplisset reads and responds to comments, including:

• Dawn Kiilani Hoffmann : “This should make everyone’s hair stand on end… real journalism is dangerous… thank you for writing… I hope you have heat now.”

• . Kelso : compliment on the first livestream and conversation quality. @

• Sara Mandelbaum : praise for the essay, volatile parent analogy, wrestling with the 24-hour challenge. @

• Diane Love (St Petersburg FL) : describes disabling notifications, instituting news hours, reclaiming sanity, forwarding to her Republican nephew, “dry January,” maybe “unplugged February.”

• Dr. Sally A. Kimpson, PhD : asks about DOJ spending, transparency, and whether Senate Judiciary might investigate.

⸻

01:02–01:04 | Closing (On-Air)

Xplisset: If you got any value out of this, I’m going to ask you for two small things.

First, share this stream. Restack this post tied to it. Restacks tell the algorithm this is worth distributing. It helps it travel past my followers into people who need it.

Second, if you’ve been on the fence about paid, you’re a free subscriber, and you’ve got the resources, step in.

Your support keeps XVOA independent. It helps me do this work consistently and helps keep parts of this site open for people on fixed incomes and or people who already have commitments to other deserving writers such as Stuart Beckham.

I work for you. Not for billionaire media. Not for party handlers. For you.

If you’re watching this on YouTube, subscribe, like, leave a comment.

That’s it. I’ll see you on the next live. Over and out.

Thank you Shelby Schneider, Carrie, Victoria Viste, Kelso, Yashira Ramirez, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.