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...
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 885
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 · 257 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
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!”
Prosecutors were headed for a huge Brady violation, with professional discipline to worry about; plus they’d been hornswoggled by Interior, Parks and Park Police. One thing for Burgum to lie on Fox News; not cool for prosecutor in court.
Why did the Reflecting Pool cases blow up? Thank Brady v. Maryland, a Supreme Court case requiring that any exculpatory information the government has be turned over to the defense. A Brady violation is a big deal at DOJ (See Justice Manual 9-5.001). ⬇️
Up against lawyers like that, the Trump lawyers are badly outmatched, as is DOJ’s crooked gangster gong show lurking in the shadows and filing no pleadings or appeal. “Fraud on the court” is deadly serious, and this ain’t over by any stretch.
Here’s the language from the judge’s minute order inviting the amici back:
Their brief on that teed up further judicial inquiry, so Trump (and likely DOJ behind the scenes) withdrew the Trump complaint to get out of Dodge ahead of the sheriff, and then announced the “settlement” under the caption of the nonexistent case.
In a simple minute order, the judge just asked a panel of lawyers, including a former Solicitor General, to step in. Early in the case, the judge had asked them as amici to advise her on whether there was “adversity” between the parties.
Trump’s lawyers (one of whom was referred by the court for Florida Bar discipline) have appealed the decision finding collusion and misconduct by them and DOJ. Who will be on the other side, in a case of collusion, with DOJ in hiding?
Probably recognizing the rotten process of their rotten deal, DOJ never filed a pleading in the case. Weird. But maybe they thought by evading appearance in the case they could duck responsibility for possible fraud on the court.
Start by recalling that fraud on the court is really bad — worse than contempt; so bad that from our research no senior DOJ official in history has ever been accused of it, let alone subjected to a judicial inquiry. That fraud question remains pending in the court.
Interestinger and interestinger: Remember the Florida federal court inquiry into whether the crooked slush fund and sleazy Trump family tax fraud amnesty deal was a “fraud on the court”? Major development down there!
🧵
The $1.776 billion Trump “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is dead! Whoopee!!
Wait . . . . how long ‘til we see a $1.9 billion “Trump Justice Fund”? Or a special drive-up window for MAGA Federal Tort Claims Act claimants?
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History885 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
885 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
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.