They pounced hard, with LOTS of evidence the government had about the “botched” installation BEFORE the charges were brought, rebutting the claim that it was a big surprise to DOJ’s prosecutors. Even that a contractor cut the lining with a knife!
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
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 · 96 sponsored · 259 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
That dismissal “without prejudice” I’d say was a mistake, as it teed up this motion, to dismiss his charges “with prejudice” so he cannot be charged again. That response was foreseeable, and now the defense lawyers have pounced.
Latest on Reflecting Pool Debacle:
The falsely-charged “vandal” has just filed an important motion in the case after the U.S. Attorney dismissed his felony charges “without prejudice” — meaning they could charge him again.
This is what happens when fossil fuel gets to fix prices around their international cartel.
When even Trump thinks Big Oil is “making too much money” off American consumers, you know it’s reached barf-worthy levels of excess profit.
Republicans set their health care grenade to go off after the election. Don’t be fooled.
How do they do it? Look at the little flotillas of right-wing dark money groups that file choreographed “amicus briefs” in cases the billionaire clique cares about. Look at the 100% success rate of the billionaire front groups in those cases.
Face it. The Court is captured by right-wing billionaire interests, just the way railroad barons used to capture the railroad rate commissions, or mining barons the mine safety commissions. Look up “regulatory capture” or “agency capture.”
thehill.com/opinion/judi...
Good. Leave them alone. Ban the practice. Pass my OCTOPUS Act.
I’m headed to the Senate Floor to ask my colleagues if we can all agree on this one, simple truth: climate change-driven extreme weather events are increasing at the same time that the government is dismantling weather monitoring and alert systems.
What’s clear is the discrepancy between what Trump officials say in places like Fox News where they are not accountable for lying, versus what they say when they get near a courtroom where they are accountable for lying.
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
🔥 Here's Whitehouse's entire remarkable speech opposing Blanche: "What's left of this committee when we don't demand straight answers? How many times has DOJ been asked what became of the $50k that the FBI reported it handed to Homan? ... our R colleagues see no evil, hear no evil, & speak no evil."
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Trump could ask Blanche to revive his corrupt felon fund next week and he would.
This "deal" is all smoke and mirrors.
www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
It’s a sad day for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Gee, why might those insurance prices be going up? What might explain Oklahoma’s high volume of costly, destructive weather events, including heavy hail, high winds, and numerous tornadoes?
Maybe a scientist might know? A CLIMATE scientist?
This is how the fossil fuel industry takes away places and activities you love. Who should pay for that?
It’s basic hygiene, to know what “impeachment” baggage officers will carry into later testimony. Screwing that up now could blow up a real case later.
What’s next? Brady’s sibling, Giglio v. U.S., requires the government to disclose past dishonesty of anyone they offer as a witness. They are now obliged to determine who lied to make good on future Giglio disclosures.
They must have been seriously pissed off to use language like “botched” about the lining installation, and to give such detail putting DOI and its components under the bus for misleading them. They really wanted court to see “this wasn’t us!”
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-06 | — | 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 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-44) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-45) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-46) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (77-23) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-38) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-35) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (80-17) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (78-20) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-42) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-01-28 | H.R. 23 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-28 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (77-22) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (97-0) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (68-29) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-23) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-34) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-39) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (72-26) |
| 2025-01-22 | S. 6 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46) |
| 2025-01-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (99-0) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (64-35) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (75-24) |
| 2025-01-17 | S. 5 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-49) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (70-25) |
| 2025-01-13 | S. 5 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10) |
| 2025-01-09 | S. 5 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 3/5 majority required) |
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.
← PrevPage 18 / 18