James Rogan

I find it interesting that Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), one of the House managers in the impeachment process, wants “live bodies” to testify before the Senate (Feb. 3), rather than using video or written transcripts. He did not require the testimony of live bodies to vote to impeach the president. Why then is it necessary in the Senate?

Is this a desperation move, as the House managers realize that their case is going nowhere fast? This is my hope, because the other possibility I see is that he is using his time in the national spotlight to define his political position, attempting to reap personal benefit from the impeachment proceedings. This is my fear.

JOHN M. FORREST

Pasadena

*

I am absolutely outraged by today’s Washington Outlook column (Feb. 1) regarding Rep. Rogan. It is a biased, unfair characterization of a decent man standing up for the courage of his convictions.

It was an uncalled for, nasty, personal attack on someone who stands on principle and who did an excellent and thorough job in stating the impeachment case before the Senate.

JOAN REDDY

Pasadena

*

Rogan actually follows his conscience through this impeachment drive? His conscience should dictate the very essence of why he was elected to the House of Representatives in the first place: to represent his constituents, not spearhead a partisan vendetta. Can he and the other House managers be so dimwitted as to think that the voting public will suffer a memory lapse of the impeachment’s “evil who’s who” when it comes to the 2000 election?

TAD MALONE

La Canada