trueman was very much caught in the middle. it was touch and go. gave him a little extra day. >> the un would then have to come out for a revised former trusteeship rather than partition. >> if any of your listeners were list especiallying today. in the american media, the american and chief, a woman was 100% zion. committed to the cause of the state. including personal lobbies about the reason there has to be a jewish state. a leader of the palestinian era andn( organized arab troops to join in the area during the war. she exposed the ties of the pollers who were lobbying to run and control the arab areas. they wondered how did she get this. did you go back and look at the press coverage. >> was it a big story? >> that would always be mainlior stories. the press was filled with reports about that. >> with trips especially to the ex-did yous. one thing i found that was interesting was what actually happened at the un. they created a commission and went to europe and went to look at the refugee camps and palestinian. we have a lot of great stories

and nce harry trueman and fd d lyndon johnson and bl clinton. you know, we've madehis effo. and we know that if you don't get it done is year in a campaign year which next yr will be with all of the members o theouse up, th a third of the members of the senate up and all that that means here, that it' highly unlikely we'll get it de. soe haven't been rushing it. this bilhas been out. thpublic, it is on the inrnet, my committee sid, of the other committees, e members, we havebeen holding townallsing telephone town halls, i'm doing one later tonig, several thounds of people iny district to lk them through the billo discuss it with them and i think in t house we are a big breaktough in the last couple of days where the blu dogs decided many of em could sport the billith some changes. those changeare being put in the commiee today. so i think it's been a pretty delibative process in terms of the iolvement of members ofongress and the public. >> a right. i think we ve to leave there. thank yofor joining us. >> tnk you. >>hank you. my guest this evening: congressman george mler. >

and since harry trueman and fdr. and lyndon johnson and bill clinton. you know, we've made this effort. and we know that if you don't get it done this year in a campaign year which next year will be with all of the members of the house up, with a third of the members of the senate up and all that that means here, that it's highly unlikely we'll get it done. so we haven't been rushing it. this bill has been out. the public, it is on the internet, my committee side, of the other committees, the members, we have been holding town hallsing telephone town halls, i'm doing one later tonight, several thousands of people in my district to walk them through the bill to discuss it with them. and i think in the house we are a big breakthrough in the last couple of days where the blue dogs decided many of them could sport the bill with some changes. those changes are being put in the committee today. so i think it's been a pretty deliberative process in terms of the involvement of members of congress and the public. >> all right. i think we have to leave there. tha

antony, let's say it's a tie between the two of you, i tie between madison and in trueman, i think thetie goes to what is sort of unimpeachably clear and so there isn't any unconstitutional about. i think there is some doubt among some of our most prominent scholars, why not construe that doubt in favor of removal. >> navia mention, let me just give one historic comeback, that backs up what jamie said. keep in mind that after lincoln was assassinated and andrew johnson became president, he was impeached by the house and came within one vote of being convicted and removed from the office by the senate. at that time the next person in line for the presidency was the president pro tem of the senate who voted to remove johnson from office. who had a very strong vested interest in that process. and so it's not just -- or hypothetical. it can be impeachment. but also let's just get back to a kills point. you can have a four years with the political will of the country by moving from somebody at one end of the political spectrum to someone radically at the other end. it's really worth thinkin

antony, let's say it's a tie between the two of you, i tie between madison and in trueman, i think theie goes to what is sort of unimpeachably clear and so there isn't any unconstitutional about. i think there is some doubt among some of our most prominent scholars, why not construe that doubt in favor of removal. >> navia mention, let me just give one historic comeback keep in mind that after abraham lincoln was assassinated and andrew johnson came to power, he was impeached by the house and came within one vote of being convicted and removed from the office by the senate. at that time, next person in line for the presidency was the president pro tem of the senate, who voted to remove johnson from office, who had a very strong vested interest in that process. so it is not just deaf, or hypothetical, it can be impeachment. let's just get back to your point. . political will of the country by moving from somebody at one end of the political spectrum to someone radically at the other end. it's really worth thinking through whether that is an appropriate way to have succession. and add to

you, i tie between madison and in trueman, i think the tie goes to what is sort of unimpeachably clearand so there isn't any unconstitutional about. i think there is some doubt among some of our most prominent scholars, why not construe that doubt in favor of removal. >> navia mention, let me just give one historic comeback, that backs up what jamie said. keep in mind that after lincoln was assassinated and andrew johnson became president, he was impeached by the house and came within one vote of being convicted and removed from the office by the senate. at that time the next person in line for the presidency was the president pro tem of the senate who voted to remove johnson from office. who had a very strong vested interest in that process. and so it's not just -- or hypothetical. it can be impeachment. but also let's just get back to a kills point. you can have a four years with the political will of the country by moving from somebody at one end of the political spectrum to someone radically at the other end. it's really worth thinking through whether that is an appropriate way to