World News

Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens says parts of Trump's post are factually incorrect, as U.S. steel was used in the construction from the Michigan side of the river.

"It's just insane," Dilkens told CBC Power & Politics host David Cochrane on Monday evening.

"I really can't believe what I'm reading," Dilkens said. "The faster we can get to the midterms and hopefully see a change, the better for all of us."

The midterms are the nearest big inflection point, and the Democrats will most likely take the House. However, unless there are angles that I don't know about, the most important thing that the Democrats will be able to likely directly do in terms of Trump doing a lot of Executive Branch things after the midterms is threaten a government shutdown when the next budget rolls around (and it won't be on a limited "hopefully the Republicans don't just decide to end the fillibuster and take away our power to block the budget" basis a la last time). That's a big gun, but it's got limited usability, and they probably have a lot of things that they want to horse-trade on it already.

They can block more legislation from being passed, but that won't really change the status quo, not unless something new and unexpected comes up in the second half of the term that the Trump administration really wants legislation on. The Republicans have a trifecta now, so they'll try to pass whatever they want prior to the midterms.

The biggest politically-useful thing that I'm aware of that the Democrats get is that in both houses of Congress, investigations require a simple majority, and they'll probably have at least the House. Trump has done about a zillion things that probably would be a pretty solid case for Congress to start investigations

that's a big part of Congress's job, to oversee the Executive Branch

and if you get a simple majority in either house of Congress, you can compel the Executive Branch to turn over a lot of information on what it's been doing. So Trump and a number of other people from the administration might be spending a lot of the second half of Trump's term sitting in front of Congressional investigations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_hearing#Investigative_hearings

Oversight hearings

Oversight hearings review or study a law, issue, or an activity, often focusing on the quality of federal programs and the performance of government officials. Hearings also ensure that the executive branch's execution goes with legislative intent, while administrative policies reflect the public interest. Oversight hearings often seek to improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of government operations. A significant part of a committee's hearings workload is dedicated to oversight. For example, on a single day, May 8, 1996, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held an oversight hearing to look into a recent increase in gasoline prices; the Committee on Governmental Affairs held an oversight hearing on the Internal Revenue Service; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held an oversight hearing on the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act; and the Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the impact of a recent Supreme Court case involving Indian gaming. Many committees oversee existing programs in the context of hearings on related legislation, or routinely perform oversight when it is time to reauthorize a program, so oversight hearings may be combined with legislative hearings.

Investigative hearings

Investigative hearings share some of the characteristics of legislative and oversight hearings. The difference lies in Congress's stated determination to investigate, usually when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or private citizens whose activities suggest the need for a legislative remedy. Congress's authority to investigate is broad and it has exercised this authority since the earliest days of the republic. The first such hearings were held by the House of Representatives in 1792 following St. Clair's Defeat in the Battle of the Wabash.[11] Its most famous inquiries are benchmarks in American history: Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome, Army-McCarthy, Watergate, and Iran-Contra. Investigative hearings often lead to legislation to address the problems uncovered. Judicial activities in the same area of Congress's investigation may precede, run simultaneously with, or follow such inquiries.

Congress can pretty much shut down the President, or even remove him from office if he breaks a law, but it requires hefty supermajorities to do so, and unless the Democrats can turn up more-damning information via investigations or similar than they have so far, I doubt that they'd get enough Republican Congressmen to vote with them to do that to Trump.

• Impeachment alone doesn't do much; it's just a formal accusation of wrongdoing. If the Democrats take the House, they can impeach Trump. The problem is that that just initiates the process to remove the President from office. You need a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict, which is a very high bar, and the Democrats will not have that, so they'd need to convince at least some Republican senators to vote to convict in an impeachment trial. And this really requires a law to be broken; it's a not a recall vote or a "you're doing a bad job" remedy something like that, but to deal with lawbreaking.

• Congress can pass new legislation over the President's veto. However, it requires a two-thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate to do so, so unless at least a significant number of Republicans get onboard, which I'm skeptical will happen, I doubt that they can pass laws requiring the bridge to be opened or whatever over a Trump veto.

There may be some more subtle things that might happen. So, the Supreme Court may decide not to block Executive Branch action due to the political question doctrine even if the President is likely acting outside his powers, if it's not clear that there's an actual disagreement between a majority in Congress and the President, over something like Trump using emergency power tariffs. That is, they may let the President do X if it looks like Congress is actually just fine with X and is just letting the President take the heat for doing X. But if the Democrats take the House and then clearly have a majority object, that might turn into SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs. That might address some things. However, I would bet that it's probably within Presidential powers to prevent this bridge from being opened, though, so I don't think that that would likely change due to the midterms.

My guess is that if Trump really wants to, and isn't just posting to generate noise, he probably could block the opening of the bridge for the next three years.