President Trump floats effort to get journalists to reveal who leaked low-confidence Defense Intelligence Agency report on Iran

Good news! Bravo! One has to suspect it was indeed a politically motivated leak by news media.

It is generally irresponsible and reckless to jeopardize ongoing military operations and national security by leaking such information in an open society!

This is effort by President Trump (if confirmed) is very controversial as it touches the journalist/reporter source privilege doctrine!

Did the media again act irresponsible and reckless as if e.g. suffering from the Trump Derangement Syndrome? Quite possible!

However, for the protections for the journalist/reporter source privilege to be enjoyed, the involved journalists, their supervisors and the media outlet are responsible to make every reasonable effort to properly verify/vet that the source is authentic, credible and accurate. If it is sensitive, secret  information on current military operations, the responsibility also includes political neutrality! With significant privileges come responsibilities! Someone ought to  lose such privileges when acting irresponsible and reckless or be punished!

There are also some doubts e.g. that the leaked report was e.g. timely. Perhaps, it was already outdated etc. when it was leaked, but without such a disclaimer.

Fact is that the intelligence services community of the US government is very large. It has a dozen or so agencies, probably all of them producing various reports etc. It is probably even expected that any time some agency is tasked to produce a contrarian view/report etc.

Caveat: I am not familiar with the details of the leak.

Trump floats effort to get journalists to reveal who leaked low-confidence intel report on Iran | Just The News "“We can find out. If they want to, we can find out easily. You go up and tell the reporter, ‘National security, who gave it [to you]?’ You have to do that, and I suspect we’ll be doing things like that,” Trump says"

Urteil des BGH: Drohnenaufnahmen von Kunstinstallationen erfordern Künstlererlaubnis. Wirklich!

Neues aus der Bananenrepublik D! Das scheint ja ein ziemlich weltfremdes,  wenn nicht sogar spinnertes Urteil zu sein.

VDH: $83 Million settlement against Trump? What a total farce!

Recommendable! What a travesty of justice!

The recent politicization of justice in America is very troubling! It reminds of a banana republic!

"... The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional leftwing criminal prosecutions, leftwing judges, and leftwing juries to come—all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president or been a liberal progressive. ...

She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.

It was never clear what were the preliminaries that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours the alleged violence took place.

Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto—and only after Trump was running for and then president.

Carroll eventually sued him for battery, but well after the statute of limitations had expired and thus the case seemed defunct. ..."

83 Million? | Frontpage Mag

Law & Order in Medieval England

Very recommendable!

In my opinion one of the most interesting feature of this article:
"One of the things that I find fascinating about medieval English law is the transition from a criminal justice system in the 12th century that relied on trial by ordeal, to a system dependent upon juries to issue final felony verdicts by the early 13th century. That’s a world that came into being after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, when the Catholic Church withdrew priests from administering trial by ordeal. England was then forced to choose another method of proof."

The above referred to Council was very special and comprehensive in its regulations and did indeed decree in "Canon 18: Clerics may neither pronounce nor execute a sentence of death. Nor may they act as judges in extreme criminal cases, or take part in matters connected with judicial tests and ordeals. This last prohibition, since it removed the one thing that gave the ordeal its value, was the beginning of the end of Trial by ordeal."

Besides that the Council regulated a lot of dubious things like "Canon 67: Jews may not charge extortionate interest.
Canon 68: Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress to enable them to be distinguished from Christians so that no Christian shall come to marry them ignorant of who they are.
Canon 69: Declares Jews disqualified from holding public offices, incorporating into ecclesiastical law a decree of the Holy Christian Empire.
Canon 70: Takes measures to prevent converted Jews from returning to their former belief."

Law & Order in Medieval England - Harvard Law Today: In a Q&A, Elizabeth Papp Kamali ’07 discusses her new book, trial by ordeal, medieval juries and "felonies committed feloniously."