It’s OK to have Representative “Frozen Cash” Jefferson on the Home Security Committee–just don’t put him in charge of anything serious, like taxes:

Pelosi removed Jefferson from the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in response to Justice Department allegations that the Louisiana Democrat had accepted $100,000 in bribes and stored $90,000 of them in his freezer. The speaker then gave Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security, and Democrats agreed to the change in a closed-door caucus in February.

“The idea that Homeland Security is less important than the tax-writing committee is ludicrous,” Blunt said Wednesday.

A German teenager has been locked in a psychiatric ward because she was being home schooled. And the court in Strasburg has no problem with the Hitler-era law under which this was done.

Ah, the enlightened Europeans. I wonder if this is one of the “foreign court decisions” that some Supreme Court justices think should guide their own?

Andy McCarthy asks what’s wrong with the Justice Department?

Jefferson is not only purported to be on tape, nearly two years ago, taking a $100K bribe, and was not only found to be in possession, nearly two years ago, of $90K in bribe money (stashed in the freezer). The government represented to a court that he obstructed the separate search of his home

Mark Steyn comments on the anti-Cheney chickenhawks.

Rich Lowry has more thoughts about Hillary’s past.

Distasteful though it might be, Democrats would be well-advised to revisit Bill Clinton

Dean Barnett says that Markos is going soft. Or, rather, to be more fair, growing up.

Ah, well, it was great while it lasted, and we’ll always have Fallujah. And we still have the Huffpo. Not to mention Metafilter.

Al Gore’s inconvenient truth.

Much of my current disgust with the Democrats developed in the 90s, when they were so willing to debase themselves and run interference for a corrupt liar in the Oval Office, enabling the first couple to continue on with business as usual–destroying evidence, gathering political dirt on their enemies, trashing their reputations, prosecuting people they found politically inconvenient, siccing the IRS on them, actually doing things that Nixon only dreamed of, all with the connivance of the press. As I’ve noted before, I don’t think they’ll be able to get away with it any more, with the emergence of new media.

Nonetheless, at least for now, such connivance continues. Mickey Kaus, in discussing the latest dust-up between her highness and one of her former Hollywood sycophants, points out what’s been missing in the discussion in the media:

Nagourney’s conclusion, and that of most other MSM pundits, assumes you can analyze which campaign won and which lost without assessing the truth value or appeal of what Geffen said about Hillary. In this “neutral,” strategic analysis, Obama lost because he was the positive candidate lured into going “negative.” Doesn’t it matter whether Geffen’s charges were true–or at least rang true–or were baloney? “Objective” reporters are uncomfortable making such judgments, but those are the judgments voters will be making. If Geffen was giving voice to what lots of Democrats were actually thinking about Hillary, and if by doing so he in effect gave Dems permission to stop suppressing these objections, and if those objections are powerful, he could have done Hillary damage even if her brilliant staff lured an Obama press aide into putting out a snarky press release.

Emphasis Mickey’s.

The media never wanted to discuss whether or not such things were true then, and they don’t now. In their adulation of the Clintons, they were always content to be stenographers for the White House spin machine. But now that Geffen has pointed out the naked emperor, will her shattered inevitability finally cause the press to turn on her as damaged goods, who can’t win the White House for their favored political party? Interesting times lie ahead, but I think that the Slick Grope Vets will hold their fire until she actually gets the nomination.

[Update a few minutes later]

Mickey also asks if the Clinton campaign is unaware of the Internet. Well, they shouldn’t be (anyone recall the name Matt Drudge?), but I think they continue to underestimate its power, again, as I’ve noted in the past.

[Update in the afternoon]

Here’s an excellent example of Mickey’s and my thesis that the MSM wants to talk about anything other than whether or not Geffen’s accusations were true. And note the little ad hominem on him, via anonymous third-party whispers, to undercut his credibility:

I’m one of the few people who doesn’t have strong opinions about abortion. I have opinions (I’d like to see a world in which we have none, but I’m not sure that the government should be involved), but no candidate’s position on it is going to be a deal breaker for me, either way. But, as I said, I’m one of the few, and to many people it matters a lot, which is one of Rudy Giuliani’s biggest problems. As it happens, my biggest problem with him is his apparent indifference to the Second Amendment.

But for those to whom abortion is a deal breaker, I ask: what does a president have to do with abortion? What difference does it make what he thinks about the issue?

Well, the obvious rejoinder, from both pro and anti whatever, is that he appoints Supreme Court justices.

OK. Well, here’s the thing. I know that it’s tough to do for a lot of people–it actually requires some sophisticated thought, but one has to divorce Supreme Court decisions from their real-world consequences. That is, the court doesn’t rule on whether or not things are good ideas, or even moral. They (at least in theory) rule on whether or not they follow the law, and are in accordance with the Constitution. It is about process, not result.

I know that this will be hard to comprehend, but it is quite possible to believe that abortion is wonderful, that every woman should have at least one, and still believe that Roe v. Wade was a judicial travesty. Similarly, one could believe that abortion is an ongoing genocide, and think Roe great, if one is inclined to want judges to find imaginary rights in the document. My position is that, regardless of one’s position on abortion (including mine) that it was a mess. I also agree with the notion that it is something that should be decided politically, and that many legislators on both sides were relieved when the Court made up a new law out of whole cloth, because it relieved them of the responsibility of having to make any decisions on it, for which they might be held politically accountable.

If I were Rudy, I would know that there would be no way to do a “conversion” against abortion (as Romney apparently has)–he’s just got too much of a track record the other way, and a recent one.

But he could make the following statement, and it would make perfect sense (at least to people who have followed my argument so far):

“I have stated a personal belief in a woman’s right to choose. But I also have a strong belief in judges who follow the Constitution. I admire George Bush’s choice of Supreme Court judges–Roberts and Alito. I wish that I’d made them myself, and I hope to have an opportunity to make similar, and (if that’s possible) even better ones, who will interpret the Constitution in the manner intended, and not make new law out of old parchment, no matter how worthy the goal. While I personally favor a woman’s right to choose, I think that Roe v. Wade was a mistake, and that this should be a matter for the states to determine. You can be sure that, if elected, this will be the criterion that I use to select judicial nominees, rather than a desire for a particular outcome that I happen to personally favor.”

In fact, if he made a statement like this, I think that he could win over not only the pro-life crowd, but also those opposed to his views on gun control. And it would not be in any way inconsistent with any previous statements on his part.

It would not only get him off the hook for many of his previous positions, but it would provide a valuable public lesson on the nature and purpose of the judiciary, and one that seems to be badly needed.

[Update on Saturday morning]

I said in comments that Rudy doesn’t have a track record in appointing judges, but it turns out that he does:

HH: You know, you picked up Ted Olson

Tom Maguire has some thoughts on the Libby outcome, and the absurdity of Fitzgerald’s case.

[Update at 11:30 AM EST]

Byron York imagines the Scooter Libby trial presided over by Judge Larry.

“Chicago, Chicago, Chicago,” he might say