For our newer readers who may not be aware of TalkLeft's political and legislative agenda, and older readers who may not remember, here is a sample of what we support and advocate for on this site:

A moratorium on the death penalty now, abolition in the future.

Passage of the Innocence Protection Act.

Eliminating mandatory minimum sentences and racial disparity in sentencing.

Greater protections for non-citizens and restoration of discretionary relief from deportation.

Fair treatment of juvenile offenders - and commitment to the juvenile justice system where they are charged as juveniles rather than adults.

Adequate funding for indigent defense

Increased scrutiny of law enforcement requests for greater powers and resources

Blocking passage of the Victims Rights Amendment and other attempts to treat the Constitution as a “rough draft.”

Preventing more anti-terrorism laws passed in haste, without adequate opportunity for review.

Ensuring our laws reflect a balance between our need for security and the cherished individual freedoms that distinguish our nation and make it the beacon of liberty.

Protecting our civil liberties. We oppose increased wiretapping, surveillance and intrusion into the privacy rights of ordinary citizens.

Legal recognition of same-sex unions and protecting the legal rights of surviving partners.

Legalizing the use and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes to ease the suffering of so many afflicted Americans.

An end to the Drug War.

Abolishing felony disenfranchisement to allow ex-offenders to participate in our democracy.

Opposing right-wing judicial activists and maintaining the independence of our judiciary.

We believe in an individual's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and generally oppose gun control measures.

This is by no means an exclusive list, but it should provide readers with an idea of what TalkLeft is about and why it is called TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime. For more about our purpose here, please visit our about page.

Additional positions we support can be found here.

We wrote yesterday about Bush's about-face on the leaks investigation into which senior administration officials disclosed the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush now says the leaker may not be found. Yet, he's sure it isn't one of his top three aides. Why? Because they denied it. The Chicago Tribune today details reaction of some in the legal community to Bush's statements:

Mary Cheh, a Georgetown University law professor, called such statements "quite irregular" and said they could have a chilling effect on the investigation. "It will take someone of considerable fortitude [in the Justice Department] to look past such statements" and investigate any of the three men, she said. Chilling effect? `Sure'

Abner Mikva, who served as White House counsel to President Bill Clinton, said that despite McClellan's statement absolving the three aides, "I would hope that the Justice Department will do whatever it is supposed to do anyway. But does it have a chilling effect? Sure it does."

Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense lawyer in Denver, said that if Bush does not know the name of the leaker, his White House certainly could not categorically rule out involvement by Rove, Libby or Abrams. "I think a special counsel would be an excellent idea," she said.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said McClellan could not have known whether the three aides were being truthful. In leak cases, he said, those who have secretly disclosed information go to great lengths to conceal their participation. Gillers also said it did not help that Bush appeared to be soft-pedaling the investigation by publicly doubting whether it will bear fruit, even if most probes into leaks don't yield the name of the perpetrator.

Don't miss Rep. John Conyer's letter to Karl Rove calling for his resignation.

Now that the documents have been turned over to White House Counsel, we expect the next battle to be over executive privilege. Here's more on the executive privilege issue.

We've had our say in the final update of the post below this one. Your turn. Here's an open thread on Arnold. No profanity or namecalling--otherwise, speak your mind.

[Comments now closed, thanks for your thoughts.]

At 8:01 (PT), Fox News projects that Gray Davis has lost the recall by a landslide and Arnold Schwarzenegger has been elected Governor. Also, the network projects that Proposition 54, the Racial Privacy initiative, has been defeated. CNN projects the same.

These projections are based on exit polls. CNN says women voted for Arnold 42% over 37% for Bustamante. In other words, the last minute sex smears didn't work.

Early news reports confirming Arnold's win: ABC News. The Arizona Republic runs with the headline Calif. voters revolt against Davis.

Jay Leno will be introducing Arnold when he comes out to make his victory speech.

Update: Former Clinton advisor Eli Segel has been named Clark's new campaign manager.

****************
Donnnie Fowler, manager of Wesley Clark's presidential campaign, quit today, reportedly over differences in the direction the campaign should take.

Donnie Fowler told associates he was leaving over widespread concerns that supporters who used the Internet to draft Clark into the race are not being taken seriously by top campaign advisers. Fowler also complained that the campaign's message and methods are focused too much on Washington, not key states, said two associates who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Fowler has been at odds with communications adviser Mark Fabiani of California and policy adviser Ron Klain of Washington. All three are veterans of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, part of a large group of Clinton-Gore activists hired by Clark as he entered the race Sept. 17.

From the start, there has been tension between the campaign's political professionals and the draft-Clark supporters, many of whom consider computer-savvy Fowler their ally.

To get look at the internet supporters, visit ClarkSphere and DraftClark.com and the WesleyClark Weblog. To see the direction the Washington campaign staff has moved, check out the official Wesley Clark weblog which launched this week.

Here's Daily Kos on the Fowler resignation:

Clark is a potentially exciting candidate, with the ability to grow our base and neutralize GOP advantages on military and national security issues. But he aligned himself with the wrong crowd. Period.

As a former member of the draft movement, I have many friends within the movement who were tossed aside by the Fabiani team like rag dolls.

And more importantly, I believe strongly in the concept of netroots participatory democracy. Dean is Exhibit A of how technology can be used to let people take control of the political process. The Draft Movement was Exhibit B. Was.

Early voter turnout in California is heavy.

... a record number of voters for a gubernatorial race — 15,380,526 — were registered for Tuesday's vote. At late morning, his office said polling places around the state were reporting long lines and a shortage of parking places but that otherwise things were going well. People began strolling into a Hollywood polling place as soon as the doors were opened. Within a few minutes there were about 30 people waiting in line.

It was the heaviest early turnout Patti Negri said she had seen in 12 years as a polling supervisor. "I've never been so busy, ever," she said. "We had to do a lot of paperwork but people seem excited and ready to vote."

Update: Estimates are that 10 million voters will turn out in person, 2 million absentees.

The polls close at 8 pm. Our prediction today is the same as last night: Davis loses big, Arnold wins handily.

Good news and bad news for marijuana users in Canada today. The Ontario Court of Appeal has strengthened the rights of medical marijuana patients and growers, while reinstituting a ban on recreational use of small amounts of the drug.

As to medical marijuana, the Court struck down provisions of the existing law that:

...restricted licensed growers of medical marijuana from receiving compensation for their product, from growing the drug for more than one qualified patient and from pooling resources with other licensed producers.

The ruling agreed with a lower court ruling in January that found the regulations were unfair because they forced those who qualified under the program to either grow their own pot or buy it on the black market.

"Many of these individuals are not only seriously ill, they are also significantly physically handicapped and therefore cannot possibly grow their own marijuana," the synopsis said. "A scheme that authorizes possession of marijuana by seriously ill individuals but which drives some of them to the black market ... undermines the rule of law and fails to create a constitutionally valid medical exemption to the criminal prohibition against marijuana."

As to recreational users, tough luck. The ruling:

...reinstates the pot-possession laws that were effectively suspended in Ontario late last year. "This narrow remedy would create a constitutionally valid medical exemption, making marijuana prohibition ... immediately constitutionally valid and of full force and effect and removing any uncertainty concerning the validity of the prohibition," said a synopsis of the ruling issued by the court.

Drug War Rant has some analysis of the ruling. Here's some more news.

No surprise here, but the Government has decided to appeal Judge Brinkema's ruling in the Zacarias Moussaoui case.

The government wants an appellate ruling that affirms their refusal to make three al-Qaida prisoners available to Moussaoui. The government defied two district court orders that gave the defendant the right to question the captives because they might help his defense.

To sanction the government for its defiance, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema on Thursday barred the government from seeking the death penalty or presenting any evidence that could link Moussaoui to the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings.

The issues before the 4th Circuit, which has already heard one set of oral arguments in the case, but said it could not rule until Judge Brinkema imposed sanctions, are these:

The government would be expected to renew arguments that the courts have no authority to interfere with decisions made by the executive branch about prisoners captured in a war. The government also has contended and will again that every word uttered by the prisoners could reveal classified information.

Moussaoui's legal team has said Moussaoui has a constitutional right to introduce favorable witnesses and that he cannot receive a fair trial without them.

New oral arguments are expected around November or December.

It didn't take long. President Bush has switched horses again since his strong comments yesterday about finding the leaker of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak.

Bush is now saying the leaker may never be found. And, he's ruled out his three senior aides as sources of the leak.

"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters after he met with his Cabinet.

If he doesn't know who the leaker is now and he has doubts as to whether he ever will, how can he rule out his three aides? Because they denied it? Would he really expect them to do anything else?

We think Bush is dissembling- big time.

The Guardian has a special report today on the Patriot Act, focusing on the growing criticism of the Act, particularly with respect to the Justice Department's application of its provisions in non-terror cases, and the threat such use represents to all of our civil liberties. Written by Guardian reporter Christopher Reed, it is a thorough analysis and we recommend reading the whole thing. We spoke with Mr. Reed for almost an hour on the phone as he was writing the article, and can attest to his determination to make sure his conclusions were supported by facts.

Reed quotes from Congressman Sensenbrenner's (R-WI) statement to Congress when introducing the bill:

The Wisconsin Republican assured his colleagues: "This bill does not do anything to take away the freedoms of innocent citizens. Of course we all recognise that the fourth amendment to the constitution prevents the government from conducting unrea sonable searches and seizures. That is why this legislation does not change the constitution from the rights guaranteed to citizens of this country under the Bill of Rights."

Reed then quotes from an ACLU letter that was introduced into the Congressional record before the bill was passed:

"Sadly, most Americans do not seem to realise that Congress is about to pass a law that drastically expands government power to invade our privacy, to imprison people without due process, and to punish dissent. More disturbing is that this power grab of our freedoms and civil liberties is in fact not necessary to fight terrorism."

Reed also mentions that not only was the bill passed without committee hearings in the Senate, but many members of Congress hadn't even had time to read the 342 page bill before voting on it. The vote was 97 to 1 in the Senate (Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the lone dissenter) and 309-118 in the House of Representatives.

Fast forwarding to the present, the article lays out the specific concerns of civil libertarians over the bill's application in non-terror cases and to ordinary citizens. Reed notes:

Update: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has suspended Judge Nottingham's order declaring telemarketer's "do not call lists" unconsittutional while it considers the validity of the ruling.

********************

Kudos to Kevin Drum of Calpundit for being the lead-in to this morning's Denver Post article about U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham and his controversial ruling declaring the telemarketing "no call" list unconstitutional.

Ruling puts no-frills judge in hot seat

Over the past two weeks, people across the country have wondered, as have those who post their opinions online at Calpundit, a California Web log - just who is this Edward Nottingham?

"WHO IS EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM? AND WHY DO 51 MILLION PEOPLE NOW HATE HIM? Judicial activism must be stopped!" was how the Nottingham thread opened on Calpundit.

The article goes on to quote local attorneys and others familiar with Judge Nottingham, the strictness with which he runs his courtroom and his rulings. Most acknowledge that the Judge, appointed in 1989 by Bush, Sr., leaves his politics out of the courtroom.

We'll agree.

Monday, President Bush discussed the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Of course he said it's a serious matter. But he also said it's a criminal action. Let's see him backtrack from that one. Or, maybe he knows who will take the fall for the leak and it's not one of his top henchmen. Or they've figured out a way for Karl Rove to be insulated.

Bush, in his most extensive comments about the leak to date, urged the person who disclosed the information to come forward. "I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find the leaker," the president said.

Bush added that "we're talking about a criminal action" and that he looked forward "to finding the truth."

As of Monday, only 500 of the 2,000 White House employees had responded to the Justice Department's request for documents. The deadline is 5:00 pm today.

Investigators say they want access to electronic records, phone logs, documents and diaries that relate to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, a trip he took to Niger in 2002, his wife's relationship with the CIA, or any contact with the syndicated columnist Robert Novak and two other reporters who wrote about Wilson.

Then there's this: White House officials are going to review all material before turning it over to the Justice Department--a review they say may take weeks: