Today’s New York Times has an enormous front page story today suggesting that John Edwards’ antipoverty programs were set up merely to provide a “bridge” to his 2008 Presidential campaign.

But guess what — the Edwards campaign tells us that The Times refused the chance to speak to people who actually benefitted from his programs.

Your Justice Department resignation o’ the week: Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer.

This is fun.

Senator James Inhofe made a lot of noise today by claiming he overheard Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer saying that they want a “legislative fix” for talk radio.

One problem: He’s now told two versions of the story, and let’s just say that they’re strikingly, even comically, at odds with one another.

Fred Thompson heading to early primary states. That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.

Fred Thompson to announce on Tuesday.

Add joke as needed.

So how does Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) slice off a few slabs of bacon from all that pork he sends up to Alaska? At TPMmuckraker.com we’re closely following the federal investigation into Sen. Stevens and his son, former Alaska state senate President Ben Stevens.

It turns out that it’s not just about the oil services business.

Stevens and son also have a little angle with the state fishing industry that’s got the feds attention. Ted put his son Ben in charge of a board that distributed $12 million in federal money in grants to state fisheries companies. Ben in turn pulled down at least three-quarters of a million dollars in ‘consulting fees’ from the same fisheries companies for services the nature of which has never been disclosed.

Laura McGann has the story.

Army intel officer outlines flaws in ‘enemy combatant’ review program in court filing.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

William Mercer, the Acting Associate Attorney General, resigned on June 22, 2007.

Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, resigned on June 15, 2007.

Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales’ White House liaison, resigned on April 6, 2007.

And what do all of these dates have in common? They’re all Fridays. (And, in each instance, the resignations were announced in the late afternoon.)

The Late-Friday-Media Trick has been around since before Bush took office — release embarrassing news when it’s least likely to get noticed — but no White House has ever been this shameless.

In yesterday’s painfully-amusing White House press briefing, spokesperson Dana Perino argued, without explanation, that the president exempted Dick Cheney from an Executive Order on preserving classified materials. In fact, she got rather specific about it, telling reporters that on page 18 of the E.O., “There’s a distinction regarding the Vice President versus what is an agency.” Perino added that this is “clear.”

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s staff looked at page 18. Take a wild guess what they found.

“No exemption at all for the Vice President on page 18. So we emailed the White House, which referred us to section 1.3 — which is about something else altogether — and 5.2 — which makes no mention of the Vice President. In fact, there is no exemption for the President or the Vice President when it comes to reporting on classified material.

Faiz added that the language of the E.O. is rather sweeping: “Sec. 6.1(b) of Bush’s 2003 executive order governing classified material explicitly states that it applies to any ‘Executive agency…any ‘Military department’…and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.'”

Sounds “clear” to me.

For a White House that has offered a bountiful stream of substantive scandals for six years, the latest dust-up might be the most bizarre.

The background details are surprisingly straightforward. In 1995, the Clinton White House issued an executive order establishing uniform rules for protecting classified information. In 2003, the Bush White House revised it. The order plainly includes any executive-branch agency, any military department, and “any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.” The entire branch of government, the order said, is subject to oversight.

This week, however, in light of revelations about the White House ignoring its own E.O., the Bush gang started spinning like a top.

The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, President Bush’s office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn’t specifically say so, Bush’s order was not meant to apply to the vice president’s office or the president’s office, a White House spokesman said.

Look, I can appreciate the fact that the White House is in a jam here. Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang repeatedly mishandled classified materials during a time of war, got caught, ignored their own rules, and is now struggling to rationalize their conduct. When the federal agency responsible for oversight tried to do its job, the Vice President reportedly tried to abolish the agency. This isn’t a fact-pattern that’s easy to spin.

But the explanations thus far have been transparently ridiculous, up to and including the notion that the Vice President, as defined in Article II of the Constitution, isn’t actually part of the executive branch of government.

Perhaps it’s best to take a moment to summarize the questions that need answers:

* Why did Bush and Cheney abide by the executive order in question in 2001 and 2002, and then stop in 2003? Is it a coincidence they started ignoring the E.O. on handling classified materials just as they started mishandling classified materials?

* Why did Cheney abide by the E.O. in 2001 and 2002 if he’s not part of the executive branch?

* Why did the President exempt the Vice President from an executive order he was already following? Why did he later exempt himself?

* When, precisely, did the White House decide that Bush and Cheney should exempt themselves from their own rules?

* Does Bush consider Cheney part of the executive branch? Why has the White House thus far refused to respond to this question? Does the President consider this a trick question?

* In its response to questions about the E.O., why did the White House point to a provision of the E.O. that doesn’t exist?

* The White House insists, “There’s no question that [Cheney] is in compliance” with the E.O. If there is no oversight, and Cheney is unaccountable, how does the White House know?

* In yesterday’s press briefing, the president’s spokesperson dismissed the oversight provision of the E.O. as “small” six times. Does the White House believe only “big” provisions need to be followed? How does the administration make the distinction?

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said yesterday, “Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration’s policy on torture to include tortured logic. In the end, neither Mr. Cheney nor his staff is above the law or the Constitution.”

At this point, I think they might quibble with that assertion.