STATE REP. Louise Bishop took cash bribes on three occasions, all of which are documented on tape. Her lawyer A. Charles Peruto Jr., however, argues that since one or more of the prosecutors looked at porn emails or racist "humor," the bribes should now be overlooked and Bishop should go free. What a strange and troubling argument this is.

Whatever consequences these prosecutors might face for using work computers to indulge their vices, how can this fact possibly be used to exonerate a public servant who abused the privileges of her office and took cash bribes? I don't care how old this woman is and how "beloved" she is on local radio. She is a crook, pure and simple, and she used her position to line her pockets. What possible relevance could those moral failings have to the demonstrated fact of Bishop's corruption?

Think for a moment of the implications of this argument. Mr. Peruto would turn criminal trials into inquisitions on the moral fitness of prosecutors. Only if D.A.s were saints would they be permitted to prosecute murderers, drug dealers and corrupt officials like Louise Bishop.

The other piece of Mr. Peruto's disgraceful argument is that the prosecution of Bishop involves "racial targeting" of her as a member of a minority group. It is obvious why he would make this argument. It's the same reason he attacks the moral fitness of the prosecutors - because he cannot dispute what Bishop did and he has no defense to the charges leveled against her.

We all understand that lawyers must make arguments to defend their clients. But Peruto is not doing that. His arguments have nothing to do with Louise Bishop, or her actions. Instead, he essentially admits the charges, but claims Bishop should not be held responsible for her own greed and her own voluntary criminal acts. This is an assault on the foundation of our criminal justice system. He is attacking the rule of law itself. That Bishop would permit such an argument to be made on her behalf is a further indictment of her and her contempt for the political and legal system that has, for decades, put food in her mouth, gas in her car and cash in her purse. If Seth Williams did offer her a sweetheart plea bargain, he made a mistake. This woman deserves no favors. She belongs in prison for a nice long stretch on a felony conviction, with no state pension waiting for her when she finally emerges from her cell.

Michael Kubacki


Not new gun laws, but better enforced ones

NRA: maniacs, lunatics, mass murders. Bloomberg: faith-based, angels, just plain old good people.

It is constantly blared that the NRA pumps so much money into the pockets of the politicians that nothing sensible can ever be accomplished. Where and when has it been reported about the money that Bloomberg pumps into the anti-gun establishment and how they even actually went to certain cities and tried to affect the ballot with their rhetoric. (Which didn't work.)

The president keeps spouting about how we as a nation are the worst in the world as far as mass killings; I don't know how he can actually say that without grinning. But we all know why, it's because of the Bloomberg effect.

Do you happen to read daily about the bombings by fanatical lunatics who kill hundreds a day? (Not by guns, but by bombs.) Is that what you want our great nation to fall prey to? These people who want to inflict this kind of carnage are not humans but monsters.

The gun-rights advocates who continue to scream more rules and regulations don't understand that there are already laws in place that don't get enforced, and no matter how many laws you put in place it only affects the law-abiding people. It would be the same as saying no one is allowed to drive a vehicle anymore unless you have a breath test first, there are laws in place for those offenders but those "offenders" who still drive will do so no matter what, so are you going to take all the cars off the road?

So no matter how many laws you put into place, you will not stop the criminal element from getting what they want. That is why they are criminals, they don't abide by the law.

If you are a law-abiding citizen you should have the right to own and carry a firearm if you so wish and have the ability to defend yourself and or anyone else who is in imminent danger.

What happened in California is just the beginning of an onslaught of fanatics creating the same chaos across the globe, this was not an act of work-place violence, when you have two people dressed in full body armor, GoPro cameras activated to broadcast this carnage, explosive devices placed about the facility and a home made for making explosive devices, I don't care what you say. This was an act of terrorism, and if you are afraid to admit that then you have some serious soul searching to do.

Joe Koslosky

Boothwyn, Pa.

Will Trump seek truth?

There was a tragic shooting by a couple of Muslims in San Bernardino, Calif.

The Donald probably would relish an inquiry into their past that would show they once lived in Mexico or were in Jersey City when the towers came down.

Mayer Krain