Lots of you folks on the right have written to me to say that the appointment of a Democrat to be FBI director is out of the question. Do you really mean that? IMO we are a stage of potential dissolution of the Union that resembles 1859. To say that a Democrat could not and would not preside over an FBI investigation that would reveal the truth is an admission of the disappearance of the level of comity needed to hold the country together. I question your judgement about this. 1- Nothing has thus far been "leaked" that demonstrates ANY collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia or Russians. The Democrats are outraged because Lavrov and Putin laugh at the innuendo and agitprop in the media? Well, why would they not? There is no proof of any kind thus far. Even Senator Feinstein admits that. 2- The FBI is a large organization. Many in the Bureau and in DoJ will know what the investigation reveals. Do you really imagine that all those people would help conceal a result in the investigation that exonerates Trump?
Eleven state legislatures have voted for a new constitutional convention. Thirty four are required, twenty-three more. Amendments produced by such a convention would normally require approval by the US Congress and the state legislatures, but, IMO, there would be no way on earth to confine the outcome of such a convention to these requirements any more than there was in the instance of the first constitutional convention in the Eighteenth Century. In that instance the convention was called to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but the convention simply seized control of the process and created a wholly new form of government.
Is that what you want? If feelings continue to run in the direction they now take on the left and right you may well have your wishes fulfilled. pl