Corruption trial puppets in cross-examination (AP Photo)

It’s “Sesame Street” meets the unseemly side of politics. With cameras barred from a high-profile corruption trial, a Cleveland, Ohio, television station has puppets acting out the steamy testimony about hookers, gambling and sexually transmitted diseases. In one scene, a furry hand stuffs cash down the shirt of a puppet prostitute. WOIO news director Dan Salamone brought up the idea of using the puppets to lampoon the trial and give a glimpse of what’s happening in the federal courtroom. Because cameras aren’t allowed, other stations have relied on artist sketches of the proceedings and videos of longtime Democratic power broker Jimmy Dimora walking into court. The puppets are in addition to the station’s regular coverage of Dimora’s trial. Although some people have criticized the station for blurring the lines between news and entertainment, Salamone defended the segments, saying it’s no different from when newscasts end with a lighter, humorous story. Oklahoma has its own share of trials that easily could be lampooned similarly.

OK, stop the groaning. Delay is a classic how-the-mighty-have-fallen story. At his apex he was one of the most powerful men in Washington, leading the Republicans in the House and raising millions of dollars for GOP candidates with a style that earned him that descriptive nickname.

Delay claims he was railroaded in Travis County, one of the most Democratic counties in otherwise mostly Republican Texas. But a jury was convinced he maneuvered to illegally channel corporate donations to state House candidates in 2002. “Everything I did was covered by accountants and lawyers telling me what I had to do to stay within the law,” said Delay, who served in Congress from 1984 to 2006. “I can’t be remorseful for something I don’t think I did.” Remorseful or not, Delay appears headed for another house, the Big House. He is appealing.

Yeah, that’s strong — too strong! But here’s some context: In addition to his work as a conservative pundit, Carlson is an animal rights defender. Earlier this year he recorded a public service spot for the Washington Animal Rescue League. He was talking about Vick in connection with President Obama’s phone call to Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie, reportedly thanking Lurie for signing Vick in 2009 after the player served 21 months in federal prison for his involvement in an illegal dog-fighting ring. Carlson said Obama’s support for “someone who murdered dogs” was “kind of beyond the pale.” He’s got a point about Obama but not about Vick and the death penalty. Tucker Carlson is a thoughtful, interesting commentator, but that one got away from him.

It’s hard to predict what will happen if the policy is changed. Most likely, some chaplains will welcome the change, others will adjust and still others will leave the service rather than do anything they would consider a faith compromise. “If there’s no protection for the chaplain to be able to speak according to his faith group, that might affect the number of chaplains we recruit or our ability to do our duty for the troops,” the Rev. Douglas Lee, a retired Presbyterian Air Force chaplain and brigadier general, told The Post.

The story almost certainly will generate a buzz for at least a few days, mostly because it’s just so bizarre — the kind of publicity the quite-private justice could do without. He’s been on the court nearly 20 years and probably wishes the Anita Hill controversy had stayed in the rear-view mirror. So, what possessed his wife to call Hill, now a professor at Brandeis University in Boston, and assert that Hill should “consider an apology” and a “full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband”? Mrs. Thomas’ message (which she confirms leaving) said Hill should prayerfully consider apologizing and concluded with a sunny, “OK, have a nice day.”

Hill, born in Oklahoma and a former University of Oklahoma law professor, thought the message was a prank at first and then turned the recording over to campus police. She said she has nothing to apologize for and said that while Mrs. Thomas claims she meant no offense, she considers the call offensive and accusatory. Lots of people probably figured they’d heard the last of the Hill-Thomas controversy. Obviously not.

The side story to the story is the way it was being handled — or not handled — by different news organizations. As of Thursday afternoon neither The Washington Post nor The New York Times had generated their own report on Norton’s activities, though the audio had been linked from Matt Drudge’s site all day and had been picked up by other online publications. By the way, Norton, 73, was nominated for a 10th House term with 90 percent of the vote in this week’s D.C. Democratic primary, tantamount to election in the heavily Democratic district.

Robinson writes the charges against Rangel range from “the technical all the way to the trivial” and that the congressman didn’t gain monetarily from any of his alleged transgressions. That’s certainly debatable. Rangel allegedly failed to declare rental income from vacation property in the Caribbean — the kind of omission that lands regular people in jail. No big deal, Robinson writes, because Rangel paid back what he owed in taxes, penalties and interest. As for allegedly using his official House letterhead to raise money for a college program bearing his name, Rangel is guilty only of padding his ego, not his pocket, Robinson writes. Move along, nothing to see here, seems to be the columnist’s attitude. Really?

So much for the crusading columnist, actively comforting the afflicted/afflicting the comforted, eh? Never mind the symptoms of entitlement and privilege wafting from Rangel’s ethics file. Hard to imagine Robinson, paid to propound liberal positions in The Post, giving such a wide berth to any of Rangel’s conservative colleagues.

There is symmetry in politics. Rangel has been a member of Congress since 1971. His predecessor representing the Harlem-area district was Adam Clayton Powell Jr., a powerful, suave but controversial figure who was weakened by ethics charges when Rangel beat him in the 1970 Democratic primary. Rangel has served more than 39 years but now has obvious problems of his own. Should Rangel survive them and seek re-election, he’d first have to get past the Democratic primary in September against … Adam Clayton Powell IV, the former congressman’s son.

Of course, L&O is famous for its opening narration: “In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate but equally important groups …” blah, blah, blah by a voice-over actor named Steven Zirnkilton. It spawned spin-offs including “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” and “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.” “Criminal Intent” ran on NBC its first six seasons before moving to cable. NBC has renewed “Special Victims Unit” for a 12th season.

Law & Order’s successful formula devoted half the hour-long show with cops investigating a heinous crime and the other half with the prosecution of the case. The show claimed its inspiration from real crimes, ripped from the headlines, and usually leaned to the political left whenever possible, reflecting executive producer Dick Wolf’s liberal preferences. Its passing is a big deal in TV Land.

The current buzz centers on Solicitor General and former Harvard law school dean Elena Kagan as the possible nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Politico reported President Barack Obama has picked Kagan, but Fox News’ Major Garrett said nothing is final yet. “It may well end up being her,” an official told Fox, “but there’s no white smoke yet.” Ah, see? White smoke!

As for Kagan, Beltway pundits figure she’s a front-runner because she’s just 50 and likely would be on the court for years to come. Besides that, she’s supposed to have the intellectual heft to duke it out with Justice Antonin Scalia, the anchor of the court’s conservative wing. No smoke signals, but all the other signs suggest we’ll soon know what Obama is going to do.

Levin cornered the Goldman execs on an internal memo in which some mid-level whatever used a barnyard term to describe the execrable quality of a security the firm was selling. Levin reportedly used the same term 10 or 11 times as he bore in with questions. For those keeping score at home, Levin was quoting the Goldman memo a number of those times; only a few of his barnyard references actually constituted gratuitous profanity. Even so, Levin no doubt was making a point about the ethics of people in expensive dark suits sitting before him. In a word, (bleep).