To the Editor:

Re “Expert Condemns Flow of ‘Fictions’ on Ukraine’s Role” (front page, Nov. 22):

I watched the televised impeachment inquiry hearings trying to keep an open mind. I was heartened and inspired by the quality and integrity of the people working for the State Department and the National Security Council. But it seemed to me that there were two different agendas at play.

The witnesses seem ed to be striving to uphold their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Republican committee members seem ed to be striving to preserve, protect and defend the president of the United States regardless of the cost, both foreign and domestic. This involved casting aspersions on the reputations of the patriots who were, at personal and professional risk, trying to help Congress do its job.

Perhaps all congressional committee meetings should begin with a review of the oath of office so that all committee members can be reminded of where their allegiance belongs.

Barry Lurie

Bala Cynwyd, Pa.

To the Editor:

As the House Intelligence Committee’s inquiry winds down and moves to the Judiciary Committee for final action, the House should consider censure, not impeachment. There is no doubt about the president’s wrongful behavior, but there is also no doubt that the Senate will not vote to convict. The Senate’s primary reason is likely to be that the wrongful behavior did not rise to the level of an offense warranting removal from office. Furthermore, given that the election is less than a year away, let the people decide.