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.
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.
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?
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Trump’s illegal war in Iran is a gift to his Big Oil friends who bankrolled his campaign with the promise of raking in profits.
Turns out it's the one promise he actually delivered on.
Meanwhile, Americans are paying over $4 per gallon at the gas pump and suffering from rising energy costs.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
This supposed 'deal' doesn't prevent payouts to violent insurrectionists in the future.
It doesn't prevent the admin from bringing the slush fund back from the dead next week or using DOJ’s Judgment Fund for the same illicit purpose.
The Great Climate Insurance Collapse is beginning before our eyes. How does it happen? Gradually, and then all at once. Buckle up.
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eene...
I’m no fan of Comey, but as of today a search for “8647” on Amazon shows 923 items. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
A decent industry would say, “this was money we didn’t earn, it’s a windfall we get from our cartel pricing scheme.” Not these corrupt, greedy and grasping rogues.
apnews.com/article/oil-...
This is what makes Trump’s attacks on EVs so stupid. To salvage a failing industry that happens to include his big crooked donors, he’s sabotaging America’s auto industry in international competition. Everything else aside, EVs are just better vehicles. www.eenews.net/articles/dri...
Part brag about all the captured equipment; part exposure of Russia’s often-antiquated technology; part resource for countermeasures research — Ukraine goes open source with Putin’s military hardware. So cool that they do this. trophylab.mod.gov.ua/en/about-us
Then you’d better stand by your CBAM against Trump’s corrupt fossil-fuel-funded attacks! Every remaining pathway to climate safety requires ending fossil fuel’s crooked free-to-pollute business model. CBAM is the best vehicle for that — it’s truly our last lifeboat. www.politico.eu/article/spai...
If the guy was deliberately trying to anger Republican senators, he couldn’t do much better than putting his despised slush fund front and center with elections looming for them. www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-06-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 302(F) of the CBA Re: Amdt. No. 2414) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Blunt Rochester Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-06-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 302(F) of the CBA Re: Amdt. No. 2696) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Reed Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Lujan Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Schumer Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair H.R. 1 | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Amdt. 2360 to H.R. 1 (No short title on file) | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-28 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-06-27 | S.J. Res. 59 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 59 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-40) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (61-35) |
| 2025-06-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-33) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-46) |
| 2025-06-17 | S. 1582 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (68-30) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (57-40) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (46-39) |
| 2025-06-16 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (44-33) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-27, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2307) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (64-33, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (45-52) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 54 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 54 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 53 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 53 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-30, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-41) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-41) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-38) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-46) |
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.