tv President Clinton Impeachment Inquiry - 1998 CSPAN November 3, 2019 9:05pm-9:55pm EST
history tv features each weeknight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on monday, the vietnam war. watch president nixon's silent majority speech. ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor reflect on sandra day o'connor. wednesday, a look at african-american history. friday, the american revolution. american history tv, every weekend and all this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. past thursday, the u.s. house passed a resolution laying out the next steps in the impeachment investigation of president trump. 232-1 hundred 96, mostly along party lines. next, on american history tv, we look back to october 1998 when the house debated whether to
begin a and impeachment -- begin and impeachment investigation of president clinton. we will hear from members on both sides. at the end of the day, 31 democrats joined all of the republicans in the vote to begin the impeachment inquiry into president clinton. unanimousaker, i ask consent to revise and extend my remarks. we must listen said the still small voice that whispers in our year, duty, duty, duty. some years ago, douglas
macarthur asserted the ideal of our military forces as duty, honor, and country. we do not have to be a soldier to feel the force of the words. they are our ideal here today. we have another ideal, to attain justice through the rule of law. justice is always and everywhere toer assault our duty is vindicate the rule of law as the surest protector of the fragile justice. received theaving referral and 17 cartons of supportive material from the independent counsel, the question asks itself, shall we look further, or shall we look away? i respectfully suggest we must look further by voting for this resolution and thus commencing an inquiry into whether or not the president has committed an impeachable act.
do not make any judgment. we do not make any charges. we simply begin a search for truth. you will hear from our opponents that we need to look further, but do it our way. way imposes artificial time limits, limits our inquiry to the lewinsky matter, and ourblishes -- for impeachment that has not been established before. we have followed the road in no format. we will move with all deliberate speed. any raise concerns about that proposition. let me speak to those concerns. the process has been partisan. every member of the judiciary committee voted for inquiry in some form. we differ on the procedural details, not the fundamental question of whether we should go
forward. many on the others of the aisle worry this inquiry will become an excuse for an open-ended attack. --this administration open-ended attack on this administration. i was in the minority, i lived where you are living now. i pledge to you the fairest and most expeditious search for the truth i can muster. i do not expect i will agree with my democratic friends each step along the way, but i know that to date, we have agreed on many things. we have agreed on many more things than is generally known. i hope at the end of this long day, we will agree on the result. i am determined we will look every day for common ground and to agree where we can, where we must disagree, we will do everything we can to minimize those disagreements. must beimes, civility
the watchword for members on both sides of the aisle. too much hangs in the balance for us not to rise above partisan politics. i will use all of my strength to ensure this inquiry does not become a fishing expedition. rather, i am determined it will be a fair and expeditious search for truth. we have plenty enough to do now. do not need to search for new material. however, i cannot say we will never address other subjects, nor would it be responsible to do so. i do not know what the future holds. if substantial and credible evidence of other impeachable as thes comes to us independent counsel hinted in letter we received yesterday, the constitution will demand we do our duty. i took an oath to answer that call. i intend to do so. i hope you will join me if that
day comes. i do not think we want to settle for less then the whole truth. some are concerned about timing. this anynts to end sooner than i do. the constitution demands we take the time necessary to do the right thing in the right way. notsh to judgment does serve anybody's interest, certainly not the public's interest. as i have said publicly, my fervent hope and prayer as we can end this process by the end of the year. that is my new year's resolution. to agree to an artificial irresponsible.be it would invite delay and discourage cooperation. for those who worry about the timing, i urge you to do everything possible to encourage cooperation. no one likes to have their behavior questioned.
the best way to end the questions is to ask them in a timely manner. reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman of michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the yield to mike -- i yield to myself 10 seconds. i want to say to the chairman of judiciary that i respect the full sum this and fairness of his statement. i know that he is a person of his word. processest these within our committee and the congress will follow along the lines you have outlined so admirably. with that, i would like to yield to the principal architect of the alternative proposal to the motion on the floor that will be
embodied in a motion to recommit. the distinguished gentleman from virginia, for four minutes. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. unanimous consent to revise and extend these remarks. i would like to thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding this time and commend him for the leadership he has exerted as we have worked on this side to offer a fair and balanced alternative to the resolution of inquiry. at the conclusion of this debate, i will offer a motion to recommit the resolution offered by the gentleman from illinois to the committee on the judiciary with the instruction the committee repeated -- immediately report back the resolution to the house with constructions -- with instructions a contain our democratic alternatives. well we would have preferred
democrats have a normal opportunity to present our resolution as an amendment, the procedure being used by the house today does not make a democratic amendment and regular course in order. the motion to recommit with instructions does give us an opportunity to have the house adopted democratic plan. the democratic amendment is a resolution for a full and complete review by the judiciary committee of the material that has been presented to the house by the office of independent counsel. the republican resolution provides for the full and complete review. the difference between the democratic and republican approaches is only over the scope of the review, only over time willhat the take, and only over our insistence that the judiciary committee in conducting its process pay deference and become aware of the historical constitutional standard for impeachment that has evolved
over the centuries and was recognized as recently by the judiciary committee in 1974 and then recognized by the full house of representatives. the public interest requires a fair and deliberate interest in this matter. our resolution provides for that fair inquiry. the public interest also requires an appropriate boundary on the scope of the inquiry. it should not become an indentation for a free ranging fishing expedition, subjecting to a formal impeachment inquiry, matters that are not before the congress today. the potential should be strictly limited by the resolution adopted today by the house. our democratic proposal contains those limits. it would subject to the inquiry the material presented to us by the opposite of independent counsel, which is the only material before the house today. the public interest also
requires the matter be brought to conclusion at the earliest possible time. that is consistent with a thorough as a complete review. the country has already gone undergone -- has already undergone substantial trauma. if the committee carries this work beyond the time that is needed, that injury to the nation will only deepen. we should be thorough, but we should also be prompt. given that the facts of this matter are generally well known, given that there are only a handful of witnesses who have relevant information that can be addressed in this inquiry and given the further fact that all of those witnesses have already been the subject of extensive review by the grand jury and their testimony is available, this inquiry can be prompt. the committee's work should not extend into next year. a review can be accomplished
between now and the end of this year. resolution requires that the committee hold hearings on the constitutional standard for impeachment, which was clearly stated in the conclusion of the committee's report in the watergate years of 1974. our substitute directs the committee-- the compare the facts that are stated in the referral to that historical constitutional standard. if any facts rise to the level of impeachable conduct, that material would be subjected to the inquiry review process. >> the gentleman from michigan. a i would like to yield gentleman an additional half minute. >> i thank gentleman for yielding this time. >> under the resolution we are putting forth, the committee will begin its work on the 12th day of october. it will conclude all proceedings
including the consideration of recommendations during the month of december. there will then be ample time for the house of representatives to consider the recommendations and conclude its work by the end of this year. the procedure we are recommending is fair, thorough, prompt. it is a recommendation for an inquiry. it would ensure an appropriate scope. it will give deference to an historical constitutional standard for impeachment, and it would ensure this matter is put behind us so the nation can proceed with its business by the end of this year. gentleman from illinois. >> i am pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished man from miss constant -- from wisconsin. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution of inquiry. at the monday meeting of judicial inquiry, executive
council informed the committee the material received shows the president may have committed 15 felonies. these alleged felonies grinder the course of the president defeating paula jones civil rights lawsuit. inclaims the supreme court and 9-0 decision said she had the right to pursue. theseesident denies allegations. obviously, someone is telling the truth, and someone is lying. the judiciary committee must be given the power to decide this issue. what is at stake is the rule of law. even the president of the united states has no right to break the law. if the house votes down this inquiry, and effect -- in effect, it will say even if president clinton committed as many as 15 felonies, nothing will happen. the result will be the return to
the imperial presidency of the nixon era where the white house felt the locals did not apply to them since they never would be punished. that would be a national tragedy of immense consequences. let the judiciary committee try to find the truth. i yield back to the gentleman of illinois. >> mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield three minutes to a senior member of our judiciary committee, the able gentleman from new york, mr. charles schumer. >> i think the gentleman. -- i thank the gentleman. after a careful reading of the starr report and other material submitted by the office of independent counsel as well as a study of the origins and history of the impeachment because of the constitution, i have come to the conclusion that given the evidence before us, while the
president deserves significant punishment, there is no basis for the impeachment of the president, and it is time to move on and solve the problems facing the american people like health care, education, and tirement.g seniors' re it is clear the president lied when he testified before the grand jury, to cover embarrassing material. in most instances, an ordinary person would not be punished for lying about an extramarital affair. the president has to be held to highery standard -- to a standard. high crimes and misdemeanors as defined by the constitution and amplified by the federalist beens have always intended to apply to public actions affecting the operation
of the government, not a personal or private conduct. punishment for lying about an improper sexual relationship should fit the crime. censure is an- appropriate punishment. impeachment is not. the specter of what could be a year-long focus of a tawdry but not impeachable affair. the world's economy is in crisis and cries out for american leadership jade without which, worldwide turmoil is a grave possibility. the american people cry out for us to solve the problems facing them. this investigation has run its course. it is time to move on. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i am pleased to yield three
minutes ted the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania. distinguishedthe gentleman from pennsylvania. strong criticism of president clinton to be placed in context. i voted for president clinton in 1992 and 1996. i believed him to be the man from hope as he was depicted in his campaign video. i have voted for more than three forwards of the presidents legislative agendas. vibrant criticism has nothing to do with policy. the president has always treated me with courtesy and respect, and he has been more than responsive to the concerns of my constituents. the presidents misconduct has made immaterial my past support. last january 17, the president of the united states attempted to cover up assorted and irresponsible relationship.
his later public statement, his answers were not legally accurate. they were blatantly false. he allowed his lawyer to make arguments to the court based on an affidavit that the president knew to be false. the president deceived the american people and admitted the truth only when confronted some seven months later by a mountain of irrefutable evidence. i am convinced the president would have allowed his false testimony to stand in perpetuity. what is at stake is the rule of law. when the president took an oath to tell the truth, he was no different from any other citizen. we cannot excuse that kind of misconduct because we happen to belong to the same party as the president or agree with him on issues or feel that the removal of the president from office would be a normal sleep painful for the united states of -- would begin norma sleep painful
for the united states of america. when you take an oath, you must keep it. having provided false testimony under oath, the president forfeited his right to office. it is with a deep sense of sadness that i call for his resignation. the president displayed his character. he defined it badly. his actions were predatory, reckless, breathtakingly arrogant for a man already a defendant in a sexual harassment suit. dismay, we were to sweep aside the conduct, what dangerous precedent would we set for the abuse of power by some future president of the united states? we must define the nations character. i urge affirmative vote on the resolution. [applause] pleased toker, i am
recognize for two and a half minutes jerrold nadler of new york who co-authored the alternative proposal we will offer this morning. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is whether to overturn the results of a national election. the free expression of the american people. it is an enormous power. beis not one that should exercised lately. if you be exercised in a manner that would be perceived as partisan. extent that nixon had to go was precisely because the process was seen to be deliberate. if our conduct is not earned the confidence of the american people, any action we seek to
take would be viewed with great his vision and could divide our nation for years to come. we do not need another who lost china debate. which not need a decade of candidates running for office accusing each other of railroading a democratically elected president out of office. this issue has the potential to be the most divisive sense the vietnam war. -- divisive since the vietnam war. the legitimacy of american political life editions must not be called into question. i do not believe that all of the allegations in the starr report have proven true. we need to remember the framers of the constitution did not intend impeachment as a punishment for wrongdoing, but as a projection of constitutional liberties. -- as a protection of constitutional liberties. the presidents ask -- the be crimess acts may
for punishment, but not impeachment. if we are to have an inquiry, it must be fair. been anythings but fair. no debate on the committee occurred on the merits. we spent the month deciding which be released in which a be kept in private. we heard the report of the two councils. not a minute of debate on the standard of impeachment or anything. now, the supreme insult to the american people. an hour of debate on the house floor on whether to start for the third time in american history, a formal impeachment proceeding. we debated two resolutions to name post office is yesterday for an hour and a half. an our debate on this -- i hour debate.
the democratic mma is a fair process. provides for scope and time. speaker, this is a fairly important issue. it seems to me that if members are going to vote on it, the least they could do is be here in the chamber. whatever they are doing, they ought to drop it and get their tales here. [applause] speaker, i am pleased to yield two and half minutes to the distinguished member from florida and member of the committee, mr. kennedy. i rise today to support the judiciary committees impeachment resolution. it ensures we deal with the
serious charges against the president in a process that is fair, thoughtful, and deliberative. we follow the pattern and procedures established in the nixon impeachment inquiry. this model served the house well. it has stood the test of time. there is no reason we should abandon the model now. the house should reject the unprecedented democratic alternative with its arbitrary and unrealistic restrictions on the ability of the judiciary committee to do its job. the democratic alternative sets up a process that has never, not once, been followed in the more than 200 year history of our constitution. it is totally without president. some have claimed the charges against the president do not amount to high crimes and misdemeanors. the report cited by the president lawyers recognizes that conduct of the president,
which, and i quote, undermines the integrity of office, is impeachable. by consequence of perjury a president would be to a road the office of the president -- would be to erode the up as of the president should -- if perjury and obstruction of justice do not undermine the integrity of office, what offenses would? not long after the constitution was adopted, one of the framers wrote, if it were to be asked, what is the most sacred duty in the greatest source of a republic? andanswer would be, inviolable respect for the constitution and laws. whichwho set examples undermine or subvert the authority of the laws lead us from freedom to slavery. they incapacitate us for a government of laws.
as members of this house, it is our responsibility under the constitution to move forward with this inquiry and to set an example that strengthens the authority of the laws and preserve the liberty with which we have been blessed as americans. pleased to recognize for one and half minutes, robert works for of florida. >> gentleman is recognized. if thehelp this nation day, we become a congress of endless investigation. accomplices to this un-american inquisition that would destroy the presidency over an extramarital affair. the global economy is crumbling. we are talking about monica lewinsky. saddam hussein hides weapons. we are talking about monica lewinsky. eaks kosovo.
children cram into packed classrooms. we are talking about monica lewinsky. families cannot pay their medical bills. we are to the monica lewinsky. god help this nation if we trivialize the constitution of the united states and reject the conviction of our founding fathers that impeachment is about no less then the subversion of the government. the president betrayed his wife. he did not betray the country. failelp this nation if we to recognize the difference. thank you, mr. chairman. [applause] >> the chair -- i am pleased to
recognize for two minutes, the distinguished gentleman from arkansas, mr. harkins and. considering a resolution of inquiry for the conduct of the president united states -- president of the united states. each of us took an oath to uphold the constitution. it provides a path to follow in the circumstances. the path may not be well worn, but it is well marked. we would be rise -- we would be wise to follow it. gentleman from new york indicated -- concluded the president has lied under oath. he should not be impeached. the gentleman is way ahead in his conclusion of where this process should be and where i am. i would say this process is not about punishment. the purpose is to examine the public trust. if it is breached, to repair it. we have been referred serious charges of perjury, obstruction
of justice, and abuse of power. the president and his lawyers have denied each of these charges. our response should be we need to examine the facts to determine the truths and weigh the evidence. it is our highest duty to vote for this inquiry so that the result is there -- so that if the result is there are no impeachable offenses, we can move on. the watergate model was chosen because that is what was demanded by my friends from across the aisle. this resolution does not direct the committee to go into any additional areas. it does give the committee the authority to carry out its responsibility and bring the matter to a conclusion without further delay. it is my commitment as someone who has tried to work with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to be fair in everywhere -- every way.
ae president participate in scheme to obstruct justice? we can answer these questions in a fair and bipartisan manner. that is my commitment. people say this is not watergate. every case is different. the will of all and our obligation does not change. they do not change because of position, personalities, or power. rule of law and justice depends on this truth. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution. >> i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, many of the president's actions were wrong. they were indefensible. our role today is not to attack him. our role is to make sure this process is defensible. this is not a defensible process. this chamber spent a little more
than a day debating renaming an airport. there bending two hours on future of this presidency. that is unfair. there should be an inquiry. it has to be fair. what we are seeing is not fair. it is not focused. we have a report from kenneth starr. we should focus on the report and any subsequent matters. we should have a target date of completion. byshould aim to finish this december 31. if we cannot get it done, we can ask for an extension. the american people want this to be a safe process. they recognize this is not a fair process. the president may be punished. the president should be held accountable. to do that in a fair way. each of us has to examine our
conscience and ask whether we want to have a wide-ranging fishing expedition or whether we want to focus it on the report that has been brought to us and any subsequent matters. if we do that, i think we can do that in a bipartisan basis. i think that will be fair. that is what the american people want. >> gentleman from illinois. >> mr. speaker, i am pleased the yield to the distinguished gentleman from california, two minutes. >> gentleman is recognized. is obviously a difficult time for every member of this house. hyde, said first by henry duty, duty, duty. mr. barrett just talked about our duty. over and above our duty, i think it is important to recognize the words at the gentleman from
pennsylvania. he talked about the importance of the rule of law. that is why we are here. over the past weeks and months, a number of us have dusted off our cubbies of the federalist papers, john jay alexander hamilton. james madison being the father of the constitution. towards the end of the 51st federalist, james madison puts it perfectly as we look at the challenge we face today. he said, justice is the end of government. it is the end of civil society. it ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. speaker, if you would indulge me for a moment, i would
like to make a unanimous consent request that on the motion to recommit, that we be granted five minutes on each side for the purpose of comment. for the purpose of debate. >> has the gentleman from illinois yielded for that request? >> yes, mr. speaker. five minutes on each side on the motion to recommit is justifiable. >> thank you. i would like now to recognize jersey,leman from new mr. steve rothman, and able member of the committee from the judiciary. >> thank you, mr. speaker. after a four and a half year investigation into every aspect of president clinton's public
and private life, ken starr presented the house with 11 allegations of impeachment, all relating only to the president's misconduct with monica lewinsky. the democrats say these are serious allegations and we should resolve these charges by the end of this year. the republicans say they will not be limited to the investigation. latefeel that he was too on president clinton, and they want an inquiry not only regarding mr. stars charges, but any others anyone can come up with and with no time limit. they want the american people to pay for it. i believe the republican bill is unfair. it is unfair to the president. it is unfair to our country. it is not in our national interest we know with the president in was wrong.
now, we need to decide, what is an appropriate punishment for his offense? does reject the open ended republican inquiry. but as follow the democratic model and resolve the 11 charges that can store brought to us -- ken starr brought to us. a nationt together as and address the other issues that face us here at home and around the world. thank you, mr. speaker. >> the gentleman from ohio, i am pleased to yield two minutes. >> the gentleman is recognized. i rise in support of the resolution. over responsibility today is to determine if the evidence we have examined thus far warrants
further investigation by the judiciary committee. we do not sit in judgment today. we are not here to convict or punish or sentence. we are here to seek the truth. our constitutional duty, we must determine if the evidence presented strongly suggests wrongdoing by the president. and, if the alleged wrongdoing rises to the level of an impeachable offense. that is, a high crime or misdemeanor. i would submit strong evidence suggests the president may have committed perjury. the historic record demonstrates perjury can be an impeachable offense. law, on the facts and the this house has a constitutional duty to proceed to a formal inquiry. i think i speak for most of my colleagues when i say this is not a matter to be taken lightly. rarely in one's political life is one forced to confront such
an awesome and historic responsibility. it is my sincere hope we can work together as our founding fathers envisioned, in a , to completeshion this task as expeditiously as possible. i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above the partisan fires that too often burnt in our nations capital. to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities by moving forward with a fair and thorough investigation of this important matter. yield back, and i the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from michigan. tomr. speaker, i am pleased yield to zoloft and from california, a member of judiciary who has worked tirelessly on crafting a middle course for the members of house of representatives, two and a
half minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. toy of us have labored hard craft a plan that would allow us to deal with the referral of the independent counsel in a way that is focused, in a way that is fair, in a way that is fair -- that is prompt and efficient, and a way that puts our constitution first. i am distressed to say that i do not think that is going to happen today. i fear that what hamilton warned against in 65 federalist paper that they were always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the party than the real demonstration of an assent or guilt. that fear -- of innocence or guilt. that fear is about to be realized. i believe the majority has used its voting power to create a proposal that could result in a
wide ranging and lengthy impeachment inquiry. the judiciary committee may become the standing committee on impeachment. thear the rules in constitution may never be applied to the referral it has been sent to us. even worse, we may end up with the majority counsel creating entirely new worlds for high crimes and misdemeanors, which will have a serious distorting effect on our system of government. when we are lost, the best thing to do is to look to our constitution as a beacon of light and guideline to get us through trying times. impeachment, historically, was to be used for when the misconduct of the executive was so severe, it threatened the constitutional of government to -- constitutional system of government itself. thefranklin describe it as
alternative to assassination. the question is not whether the president's misconduct is bad. we'll know the president misconduct was bad. the question is, are we going to punish america instead of him for his misconduct? are we going to trash our constitution because of his misconduct? are we going to make sure this investigation goes on in interminably while we ignore economic crises, the need of our students for education? i fear we are letting down our country. 24 years ago, as an idealistic student, i watched this body rise to the occasion. >> an additional half minute. >> 24 years ago, as an idealistic student, i worked on the staff of the select committee. i sell this congress to a hard thing, come together and do a
tough job for america. i am concerned that instead of rising to this occasion, we are falling down and lowering ourselves and america with it. i urge the adoption of the voucher amendment. >> mr. speaker -- [applause] tomr. speaker, i am pleased yield one minute to the gentlelady from florida. >> gentlelady is recognized. >> our laws promise a remedy against sexual harassment. if we say that lying about sex in court as acceptable or expected, we have made our sexual harassment laws nothing more than a false promise, a fraud upon our society, upon our legal system, and upon women. lying under oath and obstruction
of great weight because they shield other offenses, blocking the light of truth in human affairs. they are a dagger in the heart of our legal system and democracy. they cannot and must not be tolerated. the office of the presidency is due great respect, with the president is a citizen with the same duty to follow the law as other citizens. the world marvels that the president is not above the law. with the commitment to the principles of the rule of law, which makes this country the beacon of hope for political refugees like myself throughout the world, i cast my vote in favor of the resolution to undertake an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of the president of the united states. >> mr. speaker, i yield my friend and a senior prosecutor from massachusetts, two and a
half minutes. >> gentleman is recognized. thank you you, mr. speaker. i am aware of the fact that there is limited time for this debate here i think that is indeed, unfortunate good as i was going -- indeed, unfortunate. as i was going on to talk about how we have abdicated our constitutional duties to an unelected prosecutor, how we have released thousands of pages that none of us in good read,ence can say we have how we have violated the sanctity of the grand jury so that we can arrive here today an launch an inquiry without
independent adequate review of the allegations by this body, which is our constitutional mandate. can start is not the -- ken starr is not the agent of the united states congress. it is our responsibility. about theg to speak proposal put forth by the gentleman from virginia. one that would have addressed and would address all of the starrtions raised in the referral in an expeditious and fair way without dragging this hearings that will be interminable in nature. means for this country -- if all the president
-- if any of the president's have to do to commence an impeachment process is to name an independent counsel so that we can hear just simply that can -- that counsel's conclusions. i was going to speak about the letter referred to by the universally respected chairman of the committee, a gentleman i hold in highest team, the letter he may. starr saying make further referrals and keep the inquiry going on indefinitely. that is not a process, that is a blank check. that is what i was going to talk about. deference to others who want to speak, i will conclude
we are now to begin only the third impeachment inquiry in u.s. history. it is a travesty and disgrace to this institution. i am probably out of time. the day, 31d of democrats tried all of the republicans in the vote to begin the impeachment inquiry into president clinton. >> on facebook, 126 million people were exposed to russian manipulation attempts in the 2016 election. 21 million people honest again. 10 million tweets on twitter to 6 million followers. we rush attacked voting systems in all 50 states.
we know they targeted misinformation at specific people. in a 27 percent of voting age americans saw russian misinformation in the weeks leading up to the election. do not know what effect if any of this had on the election, on the 2018 midterms. in 2020, notl have just in the united states, but liberal democracies around the world. >> monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the communicators on c-span two. americaneekend, history tv is joining our spectrum cable partners to showcase the history of laramie, wyoming. now with our look at the history of laramie. we are in the mansion that edward ivins and bill in