America finally has its long-awaited mug shot

From the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office

Well, here it is.

Note that after the NYT reported that his cohorts were smiling brightly in theirs, Trump rejected that sissy notion, opting to go full surly thug. By comparison, Al Capone was Mr. Sunshine.

No orange jumpsuit, but a mug shot.

See what I meant about Trump knowing how to upstage a dumb ol’ debate?

46 thoughts on “America finally has its long-awaited mug shot”

  1. Pat

    I see that he made certain his makeup was good and that he turned himself in during prime time.
    Our buddy Joe should take up the prime time thing for his announcements.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Well, actually, it seemed to me he wanted to do it in darkness. He waited until AFTER the evening news shows. Of course, that doesn’t mean so much these days, with CNN and all.

      Nor does it mean much to newspapers. In the old days, this was after most of the editors and reporters had gone home. So the editor in charge at night decided what to do with you (and for several years, that was me), but there was little time to do anything really big with it.

      Now, things are different. But there is still a rhythm to things, near as I can see. And things that happen before dinner time do make a bigger splash.

      Of course, there is always someone on duty assigned to something like this, which everyone’s been waiting for all day. For the NYT last night, that was Richard Fausset in Atlanta, a guy I know slightly because he’s interviewed me a couple of times.

      And these days, the job’s not over when you file your story. I heard Richard this morning on the NYT Audio app, talking about his big news of the day.

      He was paid to be there for this, and he got the job done. Sort of thing we’ve all done a thousand times. But I don’t get paid to do it, and I wouldn’t have posted this mug shot last night except it came across when I was still sitting here trying finishing the post I was at long last writing about the debate…

      1. Doug Ross

        It’s funny to see the posts you delete, Brad. Do you really think I’m the only person who sees Biden’s obvious decline? There is zero evidence that he can speak on any topic without notes.

        I suppose you think you’re doing the Lord’s work protecting Joe as you pretend you’re still an editor. Why would my opinion be so important to suppress?

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          You have NO idea how tedious you get, do you?

          Here’s how I try to draw the line:

          You’re always negative, about everyone and everything. Your comments are a huge reason why there’s such an unpleasant feel to the comments section of this blog. Lots of people (including me) look at all that dripping bitterness (not just you, of course) and think, “I’ve got better things to do than hang out here.”

          But you’ve long been a made guy here, and I still bend over backwards to approve SOME of your comments. Of course, that means approving a lot of your negative obsessions.

          That said, lately I’ve started drawing the line where it just gets tedious. I mean, how many times do you need to say, “Look at that incompetent old bastard!”

          I mean seriously — do you actually think I’m so stupid that I think I’m “protecting” the President of the United States by blocking these stunning exposes by Doug? Yeah, that’s the ticket — I’ve got a special badge from the Secret Service — like that one Nixon gave Elvis — deputizing me to perform that special mission.

          Nope. I’m just reducing the completely unnecessary negative waves on my frickin’ blog. I explained some of this a bit to Ken the other day, if you want elaboration.

          In your case, I make special allowances, because:

          1. Unlike Ken and some others, you use your full name.
          2. You’re something of a fixture on the blog, and have been for a long time.

          But when you just keep making the same dreary points over and over, I’m not going to consider for a second approving it.

          I mean, we all know you’re the only genius on the planet who has discovered that Joe is 80 years old. You’ve trumpeted this news plenty of times. Of course, what you fail to notice is that there are a lot of things that balance that out, and we end up where we started — right now, we don’t have anyone on the planet who is a) willing to take the job, and b) would do as good a job as ol’ Joe.

          And you know, I could say that each time you make your amazing revelation again, but I’m not gonna have that conversation again and again (my response would by no means end the pointless exchange, and I’m not going to let you say it yet again without responding — a vicious circle), knowing YOU will never be convinced, anyway.

          In fact, I’m ticked that I just wasted the time of responding to this nonsense now. I’ve got about 100 other things I need to do today, and I’m going to go do them…

      2. Brad Warthen Post author

        Richard, by the way, had co-written a short story that ran before Trump was booked, just telling about the place where it would happen — “Atlanta’s infamous Rice Street jail.”

        I read it after the booking, and noticed this detail: That according to the sheriff, describing the booking routine, “They also might spend some time in a holding cell at the jail, which are notoriously unpleasant.”

        So that got me wondering about some details I had not seen in coverage of Trump’s big moment. So I texted Richard to ask:

        Richard, I was wondering — aside from the mug shot — was there anything in the Trump surrender that anyone might call a perp walk? Was anyone able to cover his going in and coming out? Was he ever in a holding cell?

        And was he handcuffed at any point?

        Richard answered:

        All good questions. What happens at rice street stays at rice street.

        I just responded, “I’ll try to stay away from there, then. “

      3. Pat

        Our local tv news after the national news had CBS breaking news interrupting to show tfg turning himself in.

  4. Doug Ross

    Democrats have given Trump the 2024 election by “trumping” up trivial, legal actions to try and manufacture a conspiracy. It’s not going to end well. If there is a jury trial, where will they find an impartial jury? Where is the evidence after 2+ years that will without any reasonable doubt, convict Trump?

    Can you list the specific charges from that laundry list of nonsense that are actual illegal acts?
    Can you claim with a straight face that Democrats at all levels didn’t claim 2016 was a rigged election? Even Stacy Abrams said her Georgia election was rigged. When’s she being indicted?

    The media NEEDS Trump to stay alive and Democrats NEED Trump to exist so they can turn the focus away from their utter ineffectiveness.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Just curious, and a little afraid of the answer…

      How many of you agree with Doug on this:

      “Democrats have given Trump the 2024 election by “trumping” up trivial, legal actions to try and manufacture a conspiracy.”

      1. bud

        I’ve often wondered if the best strategy for dealing with Trump is to just ignore him. His wacky cult seems energized by all the attention. Probably not practical though. Another approach would have been to just focus on the obvious crimes. Slandering innocent poll workers and waving highly classified documents in front of unvetted people are clear cut crimes we call all understand. But just as a matter of law these cases all seem credible. Hard to ignore that.

      2. Doug Ross

        It should be easy for you to list the illegal acts he committed, right? Give me the top 3 that will be enough to convict him without any doubt. They’ve had 2+ years to gather that evidence.

        If he’s fine not guilty, will you accept the verdict? I will if he’s found guilty. I don’t want him to run again as much as I dont want Biden to either.

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          Well I certainly hope you would accept the verdict.

          You forget who you’re talking to. I always accept the verdicts of the court system — knowing, of course, that courts (being human institutions) are fallible. But this is the system we have, and I think it’s a sound one. And it can only work if we all respect it.

          For 50 years, I accepted that Roe v. Wade was the law. I not only did that, but staunchly argued against the destructive charges both sides would fling at justices as being of the “left” or “right.” They were qualified jurists, who most of the time agreed with each other. (So, you know, it would be great if the left would now stop trying to destroy confidence in the rule of law by constantly yammering about how “illegitimate” the current court is.)

          But no, I’m not going to accept your assignment to draw up a Brad indictment. It’s after 6 p.m., and I’ve got an interesting press release to write for ADCO before I can stop for the day.

          Four indictments exist already. Go read them. What’s the most likely outcome? Some charges will stick; others won’t….

          2. Ken

            Harvard Constitutional scholar wrote recently concerning the Court:

            “Some of the justices are recklessly contributing to the growing disrespect for the Court as an institution. That disrespect stems in part from ethical scandals but in part, too, from the vast gulf between this Court’s substantive understanding of the Constitution, as well as its approach to the task of judging, and the vision of both those matters shared by the great majority of Americans.”

            So, unless one considers Tribe as another hooligan in a lefty mob, it’s clear that the legitimacy of the Court is not being undermined by “the left” but by certain members of the Court itself.

          3. Ken

            Add to the above (lest we too quickly forget) that a president who won the popular vote (Obama) was denied a third Supreme Court appointment (in a manner that had not happened in a century), while his successor, who had not won a majority of the popular vote, did appoint three justices, thereby fundamentally altering the character of the Court and its rulings. Those who believe that the popular will should have no sway over the Supreme Court have to appreciate that these things very much matter in terms of the serious damage they have done to the Court’s standing and legitimacy.
            And which, again, do not involve “lefties” undermining the Court.

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              Well, this person who believes “the popular will should have no sway over the Supreme Court” considers what happened with Merrick Garland to be one of the most outrageous abuses of legislative power to have occurred in this country in my lifetime.

              And of course, it was a demonstration of one of the many, many ways that the political branches have been twisted and distorted ever since Roe. And continue to be, after Roe.

              Taking abortion away from the political branches — as Roe did — infected those branches with a destructive virus from which they probably won’t recover in my lifetime…

              1. Ken

                Simply because the federal judicial branch isn’t popularly elected doesn’t mean it’s not also political. Limiting the “political” solely to the “electoral” is a far too pinched view of how our, or really any, governmental system operates. (Even authoritarian systems cannot and do not entirely ignore the political aspects of governing , even where no elections occur.) The infamous Dred Scott case is one example of how socio-political considerations impinged on Supreme Court rulings. More recently, the Federalist Society’s (very political) campaign to place judges/justices on the bench that comport with its preferred political-juridical framework offers another example of the political operating on the judicial.

                For further examples and references, see:
                https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/the-federal-courts-have-always-been-political-heres-the-proof.html

                1. Brad Warthen Post author

                  I’m using “political branches” in the conventional, very widely accepted, political science sense. I’m not trying to stretch the meaning…

                  1. Ken

                    As a graduate with a background in Political Science, I can tell you for a fact that my use of “political” above is entirely within the norm and involves no stretching whatsoever.

                    I take it you did not investigate the linked article or the studies cited in it regarding the Supreme Court’s political character.

                    1. Brad Warthen Post author

                      Nope. Didn’t need to read the supporting material. The points you were making had nothing to do with the fact that liberal democracy depends on having an independent judiciary. It is necessary to the rule of law.

                      That’s why, among other things, we don’t want popularly elected judges, or the nightmare situation that Netanyahu is trying to impose on Israel…

                    2. Ken

                      It is evident that the judiciary can be “independent” of the other branches while also being “political” at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. And “independent” belongs in quotes because no branch is entirely independent given the checks placed on it by the other branches. Which, incidentally, is why Roberts is wrong when he claims that the legislative branch cannot enact rules governing the behavior of the Court. It can and it has.

                    3. Brad Warthen Post author

                      Sure it can. But one understands his defense of his branch. When branches are set up to contend, that’s going to happen. and sometimes the bulwarks will be erected in the wrong places.

                      The lawmakers and the chief executive have also been known to make rather strenuous claims about their prerogatives, and sometimes overdo it to an outrageous degree. You cited a case of that recently — McConnell insisting he had no obligation even to CONSIDER Garland…

                    4. Ken

                      Here’s another Supreme Court ruling that’s an example of politics entering the Court’s decision-making: the Dobbs ruling, which was the outcome of a long-running, thoroughly political campaign to overturn Roe. The assertion by some of its supporters that Dobbs was merely following the Constitution and proper legal reasoning and had nothing to do with politics is fallacious.

                    5. Brad Warthen Post author

                      Of course, it DID have a great deal to do with politics. I’ve said many times — I think I might have said it again this past week — that it’s a great shame the way Roe has warped our politics. And the way it warps our politics — with Republicans determined to only nominate and confirm justices who might overturn it, and Democrats determined to only nominate and confirm justices who would never do that — dramatically affected all three branches.

                      The way it’s warped the political branches is that it has reshaped the parties. Once, you had officeholders on both sides of the issue in both parties. You almost never see that anymore, because anyone who strays from the two orthodoxies can’t get past a primary.

                      And that, in turn, shapes the court. And will probably continue to do so for quite some time to come. Because while things weren’t this way before Roe, its not going to stop after Dobbs.

                      Why? Because the political branches have been warped beyond recognition. Whoever is president, every vacancy on the court will continue to be treated like total war between the two sides.

                      This is a huge national tragedy, because as I keep saying, courts need to be as insulated as humanly possible from political considerations. For 50 years, this issue has done huge damage to the credibility of the court. No matter how carefully individual justices work to base their rulings on the law, their image is terribly damaged, and will continue to be, with these justices or new ones. Because of this one issue.

                      And that does huge damage to the rule of law in this country…

      3. Ken

        “The Democrats” have not given anything to anybody.
        Because it’s not the Democrats who have brought charges against anybody. It’s justice officials who have. And those charges are anything but trivial. They go to fundamental aspects of American democracy. Nor has a conspiracy been manufactured. Rather the conspiracy has been carefully DESCRIBED, both in the Jan. 6th hearings as well as in the relevant legal filings.

        But as Doug demonstrates through his post, there are many Americans who have no understanding of any of this. Or they simply don’t exercise the requisite responsibility to care. So, certainly it’s possible that El Caudillo Presidente could be re-elected (more by Biden losing than by Trump winning). Though I think that’s a bit less likely than before the hearings and indictments occurred.

        1. Doug Ross

          Come on, Ken.. gives me the most egregious charge against Trump.. be specific.

          Claiming Democrats have nothing to do with this explains why you’d be afraid to use your real name.

            1. Ken

              Oh, I don’t see anything uncivil. All I see there is nohing more than just laughable. In fact, that’s exactly what I did when I read the second line: laugh. Out loud.

              As for the rest, I don’t feel any motivation to respond. Because Doug, once dubbed a” perennial detractor” by Cindy Ross-Scoppe, is not really interested in whatever evidence that might be presented. Questions he asks are consistently rhetorical in character. Doug can make the effort, or not, to read the indictments. Not that I expect he’ll suddenly admit to being persuaded by them — for the reason just cited.

      4. Phillip

        Doug’s forgetting about the classified documents, which is to me by far the most serious of the charges and one most likely to stick, with the clearest and most obvious legal peril for Trump. There’s no way that any reasonable justice system could let that go. Even without any of the other cases, this one absolutely had to go forward, even if manages to fire up Trump’s army.

        Second I would rank the Georgia case because of the specificity of charges.

        Third would be the federal conspiracy charges, because that seems to involve a reading of law that could be interpreted in different ways.

        Lastly and to me least significant are the charges related to the Stormy Daniels payoff situation.

        And as far as Democrats saying the 2016 election was rigged, there are two BIG differences which I would point out to Doug. One is that those charges were about Russian “influence,” not fraudulent numbers of ballots, so the claims (most that I saw anyway) were not about the actual count. But more importantly, there’s no evidence that Obama or anybody at the behest of the President of the United States sought to actually get public officials like the Secretary of State of a given state to just actually change the vote totals. And Obama did not ask Joe Biden not to certify the election in January.

        1. Doug Ross

          I’m fine with prosecuting Trump and Biden for having classified documents. What are they waiting for? If it’s a crime, charge them. I hope they both are found guilty.

          Phillip.. do you think Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation? If not, why would the media and national security experts claim otherwise right before the election?

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Doug, try to wrap your head around this: Trump’s crime wasn’t having some documents lying around. It was trying to hide them from the authorities, and obstructing the government’s legitimate efforts to get them back. Biden turned over anything he found.

            Seriously, what is it that keeps you from seeing that these situations are as different as night and day? I just can’t imagine…

        2. Doug Ross

          What are the specific charges, Philip? Please give me the most egregious one. Was it a tweet? A phone call?

          How is it so difficult to present the specific charge that makes this an open and shut case? Just give me a couple of the ones that are equivalent to the Watergate burglary..

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Doug, you’re being tedious again. Over and over.

            Stop trying to hand out assignments to the other folks here. They’re under no obligation. They know how the game is played.

            You command someone to come up with X, and one of two things happens:

            1. Someone offers you a point, and you jeer at it and go on and on about how ridiculous it is, showing zero respect to either the point or the person who offered it.

            2. People ignore you, and you — rather than dropping the subject, search for the aspect of the thing under discussion that seems MOST ridiculous (to you, if to no one else), and go on and on about that, trying to give the impression that everything else anyone could have offered is just as “ridiculous.”

            It’s not a fun game, and it leads to absolutely nothing constructive.

        3. Ken

          Sorry, but I disagree with your ranking. The “most serious of the charges” IS the conspiracy to defraud charge. Because it concerns the actions he took over an extended period of time to undermine a if not the core feature of our democractic system: the integrity of an election. Whether or not it stands up when presented to a jury is secondary to the fundamental threat those actions posed.

      5. Barry

        Well, I agree with Doug about 2% of the time. So the automatic answer is going to almost always be, “no, I don’t agree with Doug.” This would be true if we were talking about the weather, cars, the color of blue, or anything else.

        No, I think this hurts Trump by the time of the election. I think it’s unlikely Trump can get women and independents to vote for him enough to beat the Dem nominee.

        I think Trump’s illegal acts are many.

        Retaining classified documents at his home
        Possibly asking people to destroy evidence

        Philip Bump had a good article about right wing attorney talking head Jonathan Turley’s hypocrisy today in the Post. He pointed out Turley’s deceptiveness regarding Trump’s actions in Georgia.

        The key in Georgia, as Bump pointed out, was that Trump was still telling the Secretary of State to find votes for him- AFTER- AFTER- AFTER- AFTER he knew Georgia had performed a hand recount, and a machine recount of the votes.

        Then he threatened the Sec of State by stating he could go to prison. Now- this wasn’t just some social media dude talking prison. This was the President of the United States, the person with a handpicked person running the Department of Justice.

    2. Barry

      Reminder for Doug

      Ruby Freeman and her daughter were election workers in Georgia. Trump called Ms. Freeman a “professional vote scammer.”

      of course, there was never any such thing- just silly accusations from Trump- a lying POS that isn’t worth a damn.

      Rudy Giuliani, working for Trump, claimed to have evidence that Ms. Freeman and her daughter were committed illegal acts as they counted votes. Giuliani accused the two of passing a USB drive between them in order to illegally impact the vote count (it was actually a piece of candy mother-daughter passed between each other- a ginger mint candy).

      Other Trump allies volunteered to help the mother and daughter in an effort to improperly influence them before they spoke to election officials investigating the allegations.

      Trump allies also recruited a black Trump supporter to speak with Ms. Freeman in an attempt to influence her specifically because Ms. Freeman was black.

      One Trump “ally” met with Ms. Freeman at the behest of an unidentified “high-profile individual” and urged Freeman to confess to Trump’s election fraud claims or go to jail within 48 hours, Reuters reported.

      “I don’t do nothing anymore. I don’t want to go anywhere. I second guess everything I do. It’s affected my life in a major way. In every way. All because of lies,” Moss testified . (Moss is Freeman’s daughter.)

      Both women have filed suit against Rudy G. Rudy admitted in court filings his statements were false and defamatory.

      Ms. Freeman and her daughter received numerous death threats as a result of the President of the United States and one of his key and high profile attorneys accusing them of illegal acts causing them to have to move from their homes.

      Up to a year after Trump accused them of illegal acts, Georgia police and officials with the state had refused to investigate any of the threats.

      https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-georgia/

    3. Pat

      I followed Stacy Abrams’ / Kemp’s race for governor. Nothing was “ illegal “ but it was certainly suspect. Kemp was the state official overseeing elections while running for governor; in my view, that was certainly a conflict of interest, and he should have been required to step down from his current position. Further, Kemp proceeded to purge voter rolls that largely affected black communities. Then there was this name matching signatures (John Q. Citizen : Johnny Citizen,
      John Citizen , Jack Citizen, J.Q. Citizen). I think she would have won but for the purged rolls. As it was, it was close.

  5. Brad Warthen Post author

    Thought y’all might enjoy the hed and subhed on this piece from my New Yorker app.

    It was a pretty good piece. The writer had some of the same thoughts that I did, including:

    Far from surprise: can there be any doubt that, hours before his surrender, before the camera ever flashed, Trump stood in front of some gold-framed mirror and practiced this lipless pout? He knows better than anybody that his supporters—who still make up the formidable majority of the Republican primary electorate—will take this picture and make it a banner. He’s a gossipy seventy-seven-year-old man who allegedly makes weird, lusty comments about his daughter, dances like a windup toy whenever he hears the song “Macho Man,” and still, in the autumn of his life, needlessly lies about his weight whenever he gets a chance. (In Georgia, when he gave himself up, Trump—whose form was reportedly filled out in advance by aides—was listed as six-three and two hundred and fifteen pounds; if this were true, he’d be the same weight and an inch taller than Lamar Jackson, the über-athletic Baltimore Ravens quarterback, who looks like a contemporary update of Michelangelo’s David.) Still, displaying a pathology that feels libidinal in deep origin, his supporters, throughout the past eight years, have tended to insist on a vision of Trump as a somewhat hunky fighting figure, ready to re-tame the American frontier and take the country back from his enemies on behalf of the “forgotten man.” Trump has incorporated this veneration into his idea of himself, reminding audiences everywhere that he is fighting for them, has been striped by a whip meant for their backs, is on the front line, taking oncoming fire to secure their freedom.

    And so, of course, he must have stood for countless minutes at the sink, perfecting his sourpuss expression, hoping it would convey manly disapproval and unshakable belief. Here I go again, he’s saying to his people through the pose, doing this for you. His eyes are ringed with an irascible red. He’s got other audiences in mind, too, of course. Naturally, the mug shot made the front page of the New York Post, the paper that is his muse, and Trump will also probably figure out a way to use the photo to sell countless T-shirts and mugs—the proceeds headed to his campaign coffers, or to his legal defense, or, most likely, both…

    But when I thought it, I put it more simply. I was thinking, He wants to make sure his followers know he’s thinking, “I’m not happy about this!” You know, so they’d all feel his pain and cough up more money.

    So yeah, I’m pretty sure he practiced it. Although there’s an alternative interpretation: He had practiced a defiant grin for his followers, but then he had a terrifying experience in a holding cell…

    But it’s probably the first thing…

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      But when I read, “his supporters, throughout the past eight years, have tended to insist on a vision of Trump as a somewhat hunky fighting figure,” I thought that the link would go to one of these hilarious things that I’ve seen at the flea market at Surfside Beach.

      It wasn’t. Too bad. My link would have illustrated the point much better…

  6. Doug Ross

    Here is one of the specific charges against Trump. I read the indictment and it’s embarrassing how trivial the charges are.

    Act22: On or about the 3rd day of December2020, DONALD JOHNTRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, “Georgia Hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

    That’s it.. that is in an actual indictment document… Do you understand how Trump’s lawyers are going to tear this apart?

  7. Ralph Hightower

    Instead of a black Chevy Suburban that the Secret Service and politicians prefer, Trump should have arrived in a white Ford Bronco.

    Also, if Trump wanted Hillary locked up, then he should have hired her

Comments are closed.