Sheldon Whitehouse headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Rhode Island
Born
October 20, 1955
Age 70
Phone
(202) 224-2921
Office
530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island

Sheldon Whitehouse

Sheldon Whitehouse is an American politician and lawyer serving as the junior United States senator from Rhode Island, a seat he has held since 2007. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island from 1993 to 1998, and as the 71st attorney general of Rhode Island from 1999 to 2003. He was elected to the Senate In 2006, defeating Republican incumbent Lincoln Chafee. He was reelected in 2012, 2018, and 2024.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 825
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party4%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Sheldon Whitehouse headshot
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 89 sponsored · 221 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

On a brand new episode of Making the Case, I’m joined by @raskin.house.gov to unpack the Trumpster Fire blazing in DC. In this episode, we discuss KBJ’s recent SCOTUS dissents, Emil Bove’s shady nomination process, the Epstein files, and more. Tune in ⬇️
In 2024, the CEO of Starbucks took home $98M. The typical Starbucks worker makes less than $15,000. If we say the average Starbucks drink is $5, the CEO could buy 19,597,000 coffees with the difference. Trump's Big Beautiful-for-Billionaires Bill gives him a tax break.
🚨🚨🚨 Jeffrey Epstein during a 2010 deposition: Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18? A: Though l'd like to answer that question, at least today l'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.
So maybe an actual pardon or formal act of clemency, dated out some months or years, with a condition of secrecy, would be the vehicle for closing the deal. If Maxwell starts pleading the Fifth to stuff, and a pardon later magically appears, you heard it here first.
She’d be a fool to give that up for nothing, so the deal would likely provide clemency from her 20-year prison sentence. It would look too obvious to pardon her right away, so a promise of a pardon would be better, but who would believe a Trump promise?
Still, a witness can be forced to testify even after asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege, as long as they are given immunity from any prosecution based on what they say. Courts can provide that immunity in certain instances in the interests of justice.
It might be better to get affirmative exculpatory stuff out of her, but once she starts talking, it’s hard to stop. Selectively pleading the Fifth can lead to waiving that privilege under the shield-not-sword doctrine. So best to stick to simple silence.
So the agreement he’d want would likely be that she would plead the Fifth to any questions, particularly in Trump’s personal lawsuit against the WSJ over the paper’s disclosure of the Jeffrey Epstein birthday book.
Maxwell may have some recollection of their banter about the birthday page, or even of picking it up from Trump in person, any of which would indicate Trump just now lied about that. Not good for Trump to be caught in a big fat fresh Epstein lie.
At a minimum he’d want her silence. He would not want her testifying about Trump adversely, and particularly not about Trump’s lewd page in the Jeffrey Epstein birthday book, which WSJ says she assembled, and which Trump just now said is a fake.
Assume Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche is visiting Jeffrey Epstein consort Ghislaine Maxwell in prison on behalf of his former criminal client Donald Trump, not on behalf of the United States or the law. What would he want? 🧵
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
825 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-02-21Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (51-49)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-49)
2025-02-20End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-02-19Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-02-18S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47)
2025-02-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-02-18Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45)
2025-02-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-43)
2025-02-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-02-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (72-28)
2025-02-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-48)
2025-02-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-48)
2025-02-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-02-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (55-44)
2025-02-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-45)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-46)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (77-23)
2025-02-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-38)
2025-02-03Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-01-30End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (83-13)
2025-01-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-35)
2025-01-30Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (80-17)

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 16 / 17Next →