Postscript: in this case, “Defendants never appeared, never challenged Plaintiffs’ claims, and never filed a single pleading …. they actively avoided such an undertaking.” Did filing nothing show consciousness of the sham, hoping to avoid reach of the court?
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.
The judge directed her order be sent “to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General Blanche is a member,” having flagged what she called the “the stain of political interference” in reference to DOJ.
The finale: the Court found “‘this lawsuit non-adversarial, collusive, and jurisdictionally improper,’” and “‘part of Mr. Trump’s pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes.’”
No surprise, since she found collusion, and it takes two to collude: “the Parties worked in tandem and were never actually adverse.” Blanche’s conduct showed “only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.”
In her final round-up the blame fell on both sides: “the Parties and counsel” tried “to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity … and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.”
“[T]he Government entered into a ‘settlement’ that deviated from its litigation posture in similar actions, disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives … specifically prohibited, by law.” Ouch.
As to the amnesty for Trumps, she said “acquiescing to any such demand is wholly incompatible with the duties of DOJ attorneys,” and may be an unconstitutional Emolument to the President, “a glaring omission.”
“Indeed, the DOJ seems to have purposefully adopted the strategy of creating a ‘slush fund disguised as a settlement, and then doling the money out to whatever constituency the Executive wants bankrolled.’”
On the defense side, DOJ did not get off much better: “Defendants’ conduct is equally untenable,” rooted in “obeisance to the mandate of [Trump’s] Executive Order,” and “abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States.”
“Accordingly, the Court expressly finds that Plaintiffs [Trump et al] acted in bad faith,” and defined bad faith thus: “fraud has been practiced upon [the court], or that the very temple of justice has been defiled.” That’s the Trumps.
“[T]hey filed a multibillion-dollar lawsuit asserting claims that they knew, or should have known, were time-barred and for an amount of damages unsupported by facts or law.”
“Plaintiffs [Trumps] acted in bad faith and for an improper purpose by ‘collusively filing a lawsuit with claims subject to multiple dispositive defenses solely to provide cover for a collusive settlement.’”
Punchline: they did. “Plaintiffs [Trump et al] improperly employed this lawsuit to justify … access to taxpayer funds and exemption from audits and other investigations … accomplished by leveraging control over Defendants [Blanche et al].”
Whether Trump and the defendants “ignored ethical norms, court rules, and legal authority to manipulate the judicial process …. to gild their efforts to gain unprecedented access to the public fisc with the patina of legitimacy.”
Well, I told you to watch the Florida proceedings about whether a “fraud on the court” was committed in the slush fund case, and we now have the federal judge’s decision, and it’s a doozy.
Here’s how she framed the question:
🧵
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Trump wants to shut down the government in September to force Senate Republicans to pass the SAVE Act, rig the midterm elections, and disenfranchise millions of American citizens.
If the government shuts down in September, remember one man was cheerleading for that outcome all along: Donald Trump.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
The cost of chaos isn’t paid in Washington. It’s paid by Americans in the grocery store, at the gas pump, and anywhere you choose to spend your money.
Trump needs to end his illegal war. Stop the illegal tariffs. And put lowering costs for working families at the top of the agenda.
In the last week, Ukraine has “sanctioned” roughly 100 shadow fleet ships carrying Russian oil. Shadow ships are burning; Russians are seeing gas lines and fistfights for fuel. Ukraine is winning.
These Ukrainians are remarkable; they make me proud to be a human being — which is precious right now looking at our leadership.
I am stunned and saddened to hear the news this morning. Lindsey was a giant in the Senate. No one loved being a Senator more, or was more energetic. The Senate will be a lesser place without him. I’ve lost a dearly cherished friend.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (5-94) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 26 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-83) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 33 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-82) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-42) |
| 2025-04-02 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-02 | S.J. Res. 37 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-03-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-03-27 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-03-26 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
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.