There is another point I want to note about what has happened over the last 48 hours. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is a pretty forward-leaning lawmaker. But on a show this morning he said something very clear: “We cannot fund a Department of Homeland Security that is murdering American citizens.” That’s clear, succinct and accurate. Those are the stakes. DHS is being used as a domestic terror force to deprive American citizens of their liberties. Yes, they’re killing American citizens. But that’s with the goal of terrorizing the larger population and depriving it of its liberties.

Pam Bondi sent the state a letter offering to withdraw ICE agents if the state will turn over welfare rolls, voter rolls and end sanctuary policies. So the administration will withdraw its marauding gangs in exchange for state leaders surrendering citizens’ right to local self-government.

I’m going to post TPM Reader DS’s note and follow up on the concept of “escalation dominance” and who exactly has the upper hand in Trump’s war on blue cities. I said in my earlier post that the White House thinks it has escalation dominance, the stronger hand at every stage of escalation. I think they’re wrong. The simple explanation is that they think this is a battle of force. It’s not. It’s ultimately a battle over public opinion. And it’s one they’re already losing. Escalating the contest of force will make them lose harder.

The concept of escalation dominance comes out of Cold War deterrence and strategic theory. DS shares some more thoughts on that. But one of the key things about these concepts, which emerged in the 1950s, is that they’re highly theoretical, in both senses of the word. The real world isn’t as linear or as predictable as you expect. There are various ways that weakness can be turned into strength. And, as DS notes, the point of escalation dominance is to keep the weaker party from escalating at all. It’s supposed to be a framework of deterrence for the stronger power.

Again we have an ICE killing in which the Department of Homeland Security gets a story out first which, on its face, appears to describe an armed civilian in the process of committing a massacre of federal law enforcement officers. A tragedy is prevented only by fast-thinking federal officers, this account claims, who shoot and kill the assailant before he can do any harm.

As now happens 100% of the time, these early DHS narratives are willfully absurd and don’t survive contact with abundant video evidence emerging from the scene. My best current understanding is that the dead man, Alex Pretti, 37, was legally carrying a licensed firearm and was at the scene in some sort of observer status or perhaps there to place himself between ICE agents and those they were trying to assault or arrest. Video evidence seems to clearly show that Pretti never brandished his firearm and actually used clear non-confrontation signals in his engagement with ICE agents. What’s more, video evidence appears to show that ICE agents had already confiscated Pretti’s firearm in a scuffle before shooting him multiple times.

In response to this latest ICE killing, a TPM Reader contacted me this afternoon and said that he thought Stephen Miller’s true goal was to have the U.S. military enforcing martial law in U.S. cities. Why else would they continue to escalate ICE’s tactics in the face of growing public outcry and the majority of Americans opposing ICE’s behavior?