Resiliency investments in structures like RI’s iconic Mt. Hope Bridge save money in the long run.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 840
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party4%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 90 sponsored · 231 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
As Trump DOJ henchman goes to clean up Ghislaine Maxwell problem, Trump House takes a powder to avoid Epstein problem.
Two Trump judges stalled a contempt investigation implicating Emil Bove. This timing is suspicious.
Trump personal criminal lawyer to meet witness who put the Jeffrey Epstein book together, subject of Trump WSJ lawsuit.
I wonder where the lawyer’s loyalties will lie in that conversation, with personal criminal client Trump, or duty to truth and law?
Hijinks in the Senate. Potentially coordinated efforts in the courts. The Bove nomination circus stinks to high heaven.
This stinks to high heaven.
It’s hard to imagine that this isn’t a coordinated play, where one hand of the Trump operation gets an evidentiary hearing into a nominee’s misconduct blocked while another hand of the Trump operation gets the nominee rammed through confirmation.
The administrative stay procedure the Trump judges used usually only lasts days. Justice Barrett recently suggested a two-week administrative stay would be too long. This one has lasted three months, blocking the hearing that would have brought Bove’s misconduct to light.
Meanwhile, Ring Two is over at the Circuit Court of Appeals, where Trump judges Rao and Katsas, over objection, stopped the court hearing into Bove’s potential contempt in the deportation cases. In court, under oath, answers would be hard to dodge.
That was the nasty business being performed in Ring One.
They say that had been done before. No. Not like this. Only when Republicans used another rule to cancel a committee meeting, so we had to move to the vote; or when there had already been full debate in a previous meeting. This was a new low.
Then they broke the committee rules to ram the Trump thug through. When there’s an objection to a vote, the rules require a committee vote on moving to the vote. The chair just called the Bove vote, and the roll was called, even over a senator still speaking.
Our questions focused on three instances of prosecutorial misconduct. In one, the “f*** you” instance, there was a well-corroborated whistleblower. That was also the instance where a judge had found probable cause for a contempt hearing.
With that signal, Bove never even properly asserted privileges. That would have met legal consternation about wrongful assertion. Having got the signal, he just refused, as “inappropriate,” or “not public” or “don’t recall.” That’s not how privilege works.
Not only did the majority let Bove dodge answering questions in Ring One, they gave pre-clearance with hand-waving about executive privileges Congress had never conceded apply against Congress’s powers of inquiry — greenlight to stonewall.
There are two rings in this circus. Most of the focus has been on Ring One: the badly abused Senate confirmation process, and our walkout as the majority broke committee rules to get Trump’s thug cleared through committee without answering questions.
The race is on.
Republicans are moving today to Emil Bove’s nomination, rushing to get Trump’s thug cleared through the Senate while two Trump judges hold up the court contempt hearing that would bring out the facts hidden from us in Judiciary.
🧵
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Turns out taking away Americans' Medicaid and food assistance to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy isn’t popular.
Instead of listening to you about climate change, Republicans are lying to you about climate change. In return, fossil fuel funds their politics. But you get hit with this insurance crisis.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Of course they are. We knew they would– that’s why we’ve been pushing to stop the Trump administration’s haphazard and ever-changing trade wars.
They said they would lower costs on day one, but their actions tell a different story.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History840 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
840 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.