Are Republicans going to defend this free pass on corruption for Trump and all his shady businesses? And why do the Trumps think they need this kind of amnesty anyhow??
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.
“What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” The federal court proceedings could carefully pull apart the tangled web of deceit emanating from the highest levels of the Trump administration. Watergate was just a break-in.
I can’t recall the United States Department of Justice ever committing a “fraud on the court,” so this is big.
The consequences of “fraud on the court” range from sanctions in the case including contempt of court, to professional discipline/disbarment for misconduct, to criminal referral for perjury/obstruction/fraud.
Next up in court is the administration’s response, signed and sworn, so they have to be VERY careful. If their response does not settle the matter, the federal court likely appoints a special master/special counsel to dig into the facts and report back.
If this was schemed up via a “fraud on the court” (now the subject of a federal judicial inquiry), that fraud on the court is complete, and dumpstering the slush fund and tax amnesty doesn’t make that fraud go away, any more than returning the jewels makes a robbery go away.
Even if crooked Trumpsters try to weasel their way back out of their rotten ‘cop-beaters slush fund’ deal, they still have to deal with the equally rotten Trump family business-and-personal tax/crimes amnesty. This ain’t over until ALL of it goes away.
But wait, there’s more!
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
$800 MILLION.
That's how much more Americans are paying every day on gas thanks to Trump's war with Iran. But guess who's getting richer?
Chevron CEO: +$104M
ConocoPhillips CEO: +$54M
Baker Hughes CEO: +$33M
The same Big Oil executives Trump promised to deliver for on day one.
If, as fired MAGA AG Pam Bondi testified to the House, “since day one…this Department has been committed to accountability and transparency,” maybe they could start by getting that weasel Patel to finally disclose his own grand jury testimony under Fifth Amendment immunity!
Last, really for government’s “victims”?
Or more as slush fund/payroll set-up for Trump election disruption thugs in November?
Fourth, small matter, but this should be the end of OLC, corrupted beyond repair—such obvious error and BS.
Third, really bad dirty tricks on the federal court (now under court inquiry, nyuk, nyuk). Also all slush fund payments are stayed.
Second, what independent review? Everyone involved is a creepy Trump insider — few more so than Blanche and Epshteyn.
So many stinking problems here. 🧵
First, what harm? Every president releases tax returns (except crooked Trump, but he said he would).
And Trump’s sick mind would rather destroy Republicans than fail alone.
If you’re interested, here is the judge’s actual order requiring a response from the Trump lawyers. It’s terse and calm, but it’s telling.
Should send a shiver down their spines . . . that is, if you can be a Trump lawyer and still have a spine.
Well, well, well.
It looks like the judge in the case agreed there was a real prospect of fraud on the court, and a proper inquiry into the crooked slush fund will begin!
Bring it on. Good news.
Hopefully this puts an end to Trump’s corrupt ‘mob bust-out gone wrong’ at the Kennedy Center.
Now questions of defalcation and misprision arise for the board members who participated in this scheme.
As we’ve said all along, the law names the Kennedy Center after President Kennedy and requires the Board to follow proper procedures—including allowing all Board members to vote—before undertaking major actions such as closure.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-39) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-41) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (61-35) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-07-22 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (91-7, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-07-22 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-07-21 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (44-43) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (46-36) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-34) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-31) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-43) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (47-50) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-07-15 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-07-15 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Motion to Discharge H.R. 4 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
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.