MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[John Cotter]

20 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

So anyone that posts something you don't like in this thread about "public discourse" is a disruptor?

Stop harassing me. Stop harassing the mods.

Poor Matt.

A few months ago, Matt got so upset over being logically rebutted that he called his rebutters “sub human cretins”, and when the complaint about this was white-washed by the moderators, he was emboldened to call his rebutters “snowflakes”.

Now he’s whining about being harassed – being harassed by logic, no less.

You couldn’t make this sh*t up.

[John Cotter]

9 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Just exercising my freedom of speech and expression. In the spirit of the late President Kennedy, you know.

Yes, and I was likewise exercising my freedom of speech and expression in describing your disruptive behaviour.

[Leslie Sharp]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You know, after the JFKA, the only group (in general) that cared what happened on 11/22 was the left-wing. They were ridiculed as commie-sympathizers, nuts and so on. 

The rotten idea is that someone should care if a President is deposed by non-democratic forces---but only if that president is from your party. 

Then, Nixon was deposed (remember, he was never impeached. He resigned). As a leftie college student, I celebrated.

Now, with partisan sentiments cooling, people are beginning to wonder: What really happened to Nixon? Why are the fingerprints of the CIA all over everything, and consider that Woodward was an ONI guy--whose first j-job was at the nation's premier political newspaper?  Really? Even the guy who revealed the WH had a taping system was former CIA. 

But back in 1970s, there was not a leftie in nation who wondered at all about the Nixon true story. People who wondered about Nixon's exit were ridiculed, scorned, obviously right-wing nuts. 

Today we have the odd, evolving tale of a true non-establishment figure Trump, the Russiagate Hoax, the alliance of the intel state-media and the rival political party, the Twittergate files, and the mysterious events of 1/6. 

Right-wingers are open to alternative narratives regarding Trump, and what looks like regime-change ops during his presidency, while left-wingers ridicule the MAGA-nuts, or even extol the virtues of censorship regarding those events. 

Nothing ever changes. 

I do not know what happened to JFK, Nixon or Trump. 

I am open to alternative conjectures. 

I respect other people's opinions. No one (at least us commoners) knows all the facts.

You're invoking a subjective perspective or "view". You provide no facts to substantiate your arguments, and in fact your litany related to Trump has been credibly, factually disproven. examples in bold.  

the Russiagate Hoax — Barr's interference and misrepresentation of the Mueller Report, Barr's findings in Italy that he covered up, Dunham's attempts that fell short with only one indictment.

the alliance of the intel state-media and the rival political party — Murdoch has privatized intel. McCarthy and Carlson represent the NEW intel state-media.

the Twittergate files — dropped by media operative Matt Taibi instead of being turned over to authorities directly.

and the mysterious events of 1/6. —  Loudermilk photographing hallways, access and egress, stairwells is very mysterious, a-typical of tourist behavior.

Forbes is not prone to publishing unsubstantiated claims ...

Trump’s Media Company Reportedly Under Federal Investigation For Money Laundering Linked To Russia

Alison Durkee

Forbes Staff
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/03/15/trumps-media-company-reportedly-under-federal-investigation-for-money-laundering-linked-to-russia/?sh=3469386468a1

Edited March 17, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Ron Bulman]

The premise for this thread was the locking of the Thank You Moderators thread by Steve Thomas.  That thread started with Steve's personal, simple opinion of thanking them for locking the 56 Years thread.  Which had become toxic with personal attacks.  The Thank You thread had gone from Steve's thank you, to some of us saying sorry to see the 56 years thread go but it had gotten out of hand, to bashing the mods, and others here.  More than one post there did this.  From the third post before Thank You was shut down:

Is it any wonder that the JFKA “research community” has achieved precisely fcuk all in the decades since such puerile illogical behaviour became publicly aired on internet forums?

Is it any wonder that the general public doesn’t give a flying fcuk about these puerile pis*ing contests?

John, can you understand how your comments contributed to "Thank You" being shut down?

 

[John Cotter]

22 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

The premise for this thread was the locking of the Thank You Moderators thread by Steve Thomas.  That thread started with Steve's personal, simple opinion of thanking them for locking the 56 Years thread.  Which had become toxic with personal attacks.  The Thank You thread had gone from Steve's thank you, to some of us saying sorry to see the 56 years thread go but it had gotten out of hand, to bashing the mods, and others here.  More than one post there did this.  From the third post before Thank You was shut down:

Is it any wonder that the JFKA “research community” has achieved precisely fcuk all in the decades since such puerile illogical behaviour became publicly aired on internet forums?

Is it any wonder that the general public doesn’t give a flying fcuk about these puerile pis*ing contests?

John, can you understand how your comments contributed to "Thank You" being shut down?

 

Is there any end to the disruptive behaviour by these ideological fellow travellers?

Mr Bulman, please explain precisely what was wrong about any comments that I made.

[Benjamin Cole]

23 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

The premise for this thread was the locking of the Thank You Moderators thread by Steve Thomas.  That thread started with Steve's personal, simple opinion of thanking them for locking the 56 Years thread.  Which had become toxic with personal attacks.  The Thank You thread had gone from Steve's thank you, to some of us saying sorry to see the 56 years thread go but it had gotten out of hand, to bashing the mods, and others here.  More than one post there did this.  From the third post before Thank You was shut down:

Is it any wonder that the JFKA “research community” has achieved precisely fcuk all in the decades since such puerile illogical behaviour became publicly aired on internet forums?

Is it any wonder that the general public doesn’t give a flying fcuk about these puerile pis*ing contests?

John, can you understand how your comments contributed to "Thank You" being shut down?

 

I thought this thread was about freedom of speech. 

Freedom of speech is amplified when dissent is encouraged. 

When we do not accept official-M$M narratives, but ask questions, project alternative narratives..."Good," I say. 

[Benjamin Cole]

30 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You're invoking a subjective perspective or "view". You provide no facts to substantiate your arguments, and in fact your litany related to Trump has been credibly, factually disproven. examples in bold.  

the Russiagate Hoax — Barr's interference and misrepresentation of the Mueller Report, Barr's findings in Italy that he covered up, Dunham's attempts that fell short with only one indictment.

the alliance of the intel state-media and the rival political party — Murdoch has privatized intel. McCarthy and Carlson represent the NEW intel state-media.

the Twittergate files — dropped by media operative Matt Taibi instead of being turned over to authorities directly.

and the mysterious events of 1/6. —  Loudermilk photographing hallways, access and egress, stairwells is very mysterious, a-typical of tourist behavior.

Forbes is not prone to publishing unsubstantiated claims ...

Trump’s Media Company Reportedly Under Federal Investigation For Money Laundering Linked To Russia

Alison Durkee

Forbes Staff
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/03/15/trumps-media-company-reportedly-under-federal-investigation-for-money-laundering-linked-to-russia/?sh=3469386468a1

LS--

We are certainly worlds apart in our views. 

Probably best that each of us state our case, and allow the other the same and equal space.

I look forward to your contributions to EF. 

[Mark Knight]

37 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Mr Bulman, please explain precisely what was wrong about any comments that I made.

Mr. Cotter, I will step in for Mr. Bulman and explain "precisely what was wrong" with the comments he cited.

In the pinned topic MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR, administrator James Gordon posted the following:

"In addition I have noted that some members have been playing with word structure to avoid using offensive language. That will no longer be tolerated."

This is NOT some new rule. This post dates back to 2015. And it covers what you did twice with a word beginning with "f" and again with a word beginning with "p". [I won't repost the words, because I don't want to give you the opportunity to call me a hypocrite for demonstrating the offensive behaviour in order to point out examples of the offensive behaviour.]

I would suggest you take a couple of moments to reacquaint yourself with the forum rules.

The Education Forum is NOT ROKC. The administrators, though we are human, are attempting to continue the standards established by our predecessor, John Simkin.

References:

MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

25 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Cotter, I will step in for Mr. Bulman and explain "precisely what was wrong" with the comments he cited.

In the pinned topic MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR, administrator James Gordon posted the following:

"In addition I have noted that some members have been playing with word structure to avoid using offensive language. That will no longer be tolerated."

This is NOT some new rule. This post dates back to 2015. And it covers what you did twice with a word beginning with "f" and again with a word beginning with "p". [I won't repost the words, because I don't want to give you the opportunity to call me a hypocrite for demonstrating the offensive behaviour in order to point out examples of the offensive behaviour.]

I would suggest you take a couple of moments to reacquaint yourself with the forum rules.

The Education Forum is NOT ROKC. The administrators, though we are human, are attempting to continue the standards established by our predecessor, John Simkin.

References:

MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

 

 

Thank you, Mark.  So, I could insist that Matthew Koch's crass use of feces (he opted for a far more crass term) to identify elements central to Albarelli's investigation into the assassination in Dallas that I included in a comment, be removed — lest his disgusting comment is left to smolder on the thread?  I won't spend time digging thru the muck,  but I'm compelled to make the point that Mr. Koch got away with a good deal in the short time I've been engaged.

[Leslie Sharp]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

We are certainly worlds apart in our views. 

Probably best that each of us state our case, and allow the other the same and equal space.

I look forward to your contributions to EF. 

 I look forward to your contributions . . . there seems to be an echo in this thread.  

I appreciate you look forward to contributions, but I'm curious why you feel a need to repeat the phrase with every response?

You suggest here that you've presented a case.  If you have, can you please repost because I don't recognize anything that fits the description.  Maybe you could start by challenging the following in the specific. You could build your case from here, with facts not views.  

the Russiagate Hoax — Barr's interference [with] and misrepresentation of the Mueller Report, Barr's findings in Italy that he [later] covered up, Dunham's attempts that fell short with only one indictment. 

the alliance of the intel state-media and the rival political party — Murdoch has privatized intel. McCarthy and Carlson represent the NEW intel state-media [as evidence by Carlson's eclusive access to 40,000 hours of footage of Jan 6.]

the Twittergate files — dropped [in the public domain] by media operative Matt Taibi instead of being turned over to authorities directly.

and the mysterious events of 1/6. —  Loudermilk photographing hallways, access and egress, stairwells is very mysterious, a-typical of tourist behavior.

[Guest]

@Mark Knight @Sandy Larsen @Kathy Beckett @James Gordon. 
 

Can we have a free and open dialogue with you guys over the reinstatement of @Matthew Koch ? You all would identify as being pro-equality, and pro-adherence to rules here on the forum. IMO you’re permitting something to happen that isn’t just, nor equal. 
 

How can we have people identifying as the blue tribe, making jokes that include disabled people and posting ‘the finger’ toward their opposition? 
 

What kind of forum do you want this to be? Do we want new members? Do we want ‘diversity’ in terms of opinions? Do we want to continue ad hominem? Its been a couple of days and its as bad as ever. 
 

Thoughts? 
 

#RePost 

[Guest]

@Mark Knight says:

For Chris Barnard's benefit, from my subjective experience, which I am entitled to express, Mr. Koch exhibited the characteristics of a trained provocateur. Chris, if we're permitted to identify perps in the Kennedy assassination who are no longer able to defend themselves, logically the same rule should apply here. If I'm still transgressing forum rules, a moderator, not a school monitor, should step in.
 

——————

That’s false equivalence, Mark and irrelevant. Your reason for banning @Matthew Koch is a rule you made up on the spot. Nobody could adhere to it, because it only existed in your mind. Do you think thats fair or equitable? You had a prominent member of the liberal persuasion do the same thing to Lance, and you said and did nothing. Thats a double standard. You guys claim to be fair, the reality isn’t the case. You’re proving it here. There should not be one rule for conservatives and one for liberals. 
 

[Guest]

@Mark Knight said:

 

There are a few points I'd like to make here.

1. Contributing to the Education Forum is voluntary. It is not a membership fee. But contributing does not "buy" anyone an exemption from the forum rules. The only thing a contribution to the EF funding does is pay for the continued existence of the EF. There is no quid pro quo, no "pay to play," and no exemption from forum rules.

2. If Mr. Cotter chooses to make me the bogeyman and the "source of all evil" on this forum, he can do that. I'm an old guy with broad shoulders. I'm tempted to say, "I've been called worse by better," but I have no idea whether Mr. Cotter IS worse or better. I would bet that, away from this forum, we would likely find some common ground in a discussion over a beverage of choice.

3. While I have my own political viewpoints, they have no bearing on how the forum is moderated. The primary driver of moderation is the reports made by forum members themselves. I don't generally act unilaterally. I usually consult with the other administrators, and many times I simply ignore the reports that seem to be about literally nothing.

4. If I see a post that angers me [few do], I generally refer them to the other administrators to ensure that I'm not acting out of anger and that someone else can make the decision whether the post deserves moderation. In that way, I'm doing my humanly best to remain as impartial as I possibly can.

5. The suspension of Matthew Koch's posting privileges was not the decision of only one administrator. The deliberations involved took place over a considerable length of time.

6. The "56 Years" thread has not been deleted. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

 

————————————————————-

I replied:

 

Hi Mark, 

I mean the following with all due respect. I know you guys do this on a volunteer basis and it has eaten up peoples time lately, which must be frustrating. I also know that there is a great deal of political nettle and friction in the USA. With that taken into account, I will point out the following:

 

1) I agree that voluntary contributions are not a contract and they do not give a person special privileges or rights here. However, people do contribute not only on the basis of wanting the forum and its treasure trove of information and discussions to be preserved but, also so they can participate.
Without any caution or warning, or direct message/email, @Matthew Koch has been suspended or banned. You have also cited a reason for this banning in the public post, though not naming Matthew per se. Stalking was mentioned. I have no problem with there being a rule for that, which prohibits publicly available information about a person being shared or referenced about a person without their permission. But, there was no such rule for that at the time of you suspended Matthew. Jim Di also shared something about Lance, and he isn’t banned for the same thing. Why? Can we have one rule for the goose and another for the gander? I witnessed the fracas between Ron and Matthew, however, there was previous vitriol which started with Ron using a play on words with Matthews last name. Ron did also respond breaking rules and as far as I am aware, he isn’t suspended either.

I am not seeking that anyone is banned or suspended here, I would like equality, a level playing field, a sense of fairness. And a situation where we all are clear where the line is.
 

2/3) I know it won’t be popular for me to say but, I can see where John is coming from. I have never had any truck with you, Mark. Our exchanges have always been rather cordial. If we go to page 865 or 866 of the thread in question: you did have some nettle with Matthew and I don’t think your response was fair, kind or impartial:

 

 

Mark Knight

Posted October 1, 2022

   On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM,  Sandy Larsen said: 

   On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM,  Sandy Larsen said: 

Just pondering my new surroundings...

The difference between Matthew and Ben is that Matthew is all-in Trump, whereas Ben is all-in what he wants Trump to be. Matthew believes all MAGAverse alternative facts, whereas Ben believes only the ones he can fit with his True Trump.

 

I think Matthew's last name tells us where his loyalties lie.

Whether he's related to them or not.

—————————————————-

Does the above sound ok? Look, we’ve all said things that in hind sight may have been regrettable.

What it looks like is that perhaps you should have recused yourself in this case, as it may be argued that there is a conflict of interests or a conscious or unconscious bias present. I don’t know if all moderators are fiercely loyal Democrats but, it certainly seems like a majority, Kathy has been quite pointed at times too IMO (not impartial). Is this analogous to having an white jury try Emmett Till? It doesn’t seem fair at all. I would think differently if others had been held to account for doing the same things as Matthew. 
 

4) Makes sense. 

5) It may be a consensus but, it doesn’t make it better if it looks like a witch-hunt. There is a moral responsibility to make a fair decision. The thread was seen to be deteriorating for days and nothing was done. People on one side of the debate were defamed (mostly, not exclusively), all sorts of heinous terms were used or insinuated, the worst insults and then there was some retaliation. At any point in time mods could have said; enough us enough, any ad hominem directly or indirectly will be a weeks ban, no matter how big or small, and it would have diffused the situation IMO. It would have been much quicker to fire out 6-8 copy paste messages to offenders. Instead it was allowed to rattle on, with tensions building. Was what Matthew did worse than being called fascist, far-right, anti-semitic, and whatever else? There are no grounds for this. I am on the left and libertarian, but, I have also been much maligned and called some of these things. I have retaliated as sometimes its been the only way to stop the culprits and put them in retreat. It shouldn’t be that way if we desire a decent discourse. Yes, we are all human and we often fail to live up to our high ideals. Democrats are supposed to have much higher ideals than Republicans (or at least I was led to believe), the party of FDR and JFK. Would either of those two be banning Matthew right now with no explanation or forewarning? Would they choose to censor? 
 

6) I think moving the thread was the right thing to do. I think the Trump thread at the top should also be moved. 
 

In conclusion, I would ask you guys to review your own decision. As I think standards/criteria haven’t been met. I think we have to demonstrate them if we are to justify action against an ideological enemy. Of course that’s just my opinion, you can do as you wish, its your prerogative. At least in my eyes this doesn’t seem fair or equitable. We can all do better. 
 

Chris 

———————————————

If you guys are justified as per your own rules, why are you hiding from a free and open dialogue on the matter? Why are you failing to justify your positions? 
 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

41 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 I look forward to your contributions . . . there seems to be an echo in this thread.  

I appreciate you look forward to contributions, but I'm curious why you feel a need to repeat the phrase with every response?

You suggest here that you've presented a case.  If you have, can you please repost because I don't recognize anything that fits the description.  Maybe you could start by challenging the following in the specific. You could build your case from here, with facts not views.  

the Russiagate Hoax — Barr's interference [with] and misrepresentation of the Mueller Report, Barr's findings in Italy that he [later] covered up, Dunham's attempts that fell short with only one indictment. 

the alliance of the intel state-media and the rival political party — Murdoch has privatized intel. McCarthy and Carlson represent the NEW intel state-media [as evidence by Carlson's eclusive access to 40,000 hours of footage of Jan 6.]

the Twittergate files — dropped [in the public domain] by media operative Matt Taibi instead of being turned over to authorities directly.

and the mysterious events of 1/6. —  Loudermilk photographing hallways, access and egress, stairwells is very mysterious, a-typical of tourist behavior.

I realize that you have not printed out and memorized all my posts.

But I have presented my views on variations of these topics before, probably too many times. 

1. Russiagate Hoax: I agree with the Matt Taibbis, the Glenn Greenwalds, and even the Peter Strzoks, that "there is no there, there."  One can conjecture what happened in certain meetings...but conjectures and accusations are not evidence. The Biden Justice Department has had two years now....We just have to agree to disagree. We could spend hours on even minute points of Russiagate Hoax...did Manafort know Kilimnik was an FSB asset, or even was Kilimnik an FSB asset? Do intel-assets go around telling people, "BTW, I am a spy?" That is called "blowing your cover," and might even have fatal consequences. See also the 24,000-word CJR four-part series on the topic, free online. I largely agree with that article.  

2. My take is Fox-Carlson is on the outs with the national security state---did you see Carlson say Pompeo must have known who killed JFK. Egads! Meanwhile, there are platoons of ex intel-state guys holding forth at CNN and MSNBC. Too many to count. Let's disagree on this one. 

3. Matt Taibbi, and many, many other solid reporters, from across the spectrum, have reviewed the Twittergate Files and concluded Twitter was running government-approved or influenced algorithms , and also silencing ordinary Americans who had non-orthodox views. This is a short-hand statement for what went on. I don't understand why one would turn Twittergate evidence over to authorities---when it is the authorities that are doing the bad stuff. We disagree on this one.

4. On Jan. 6, surely there were crazies in the crowd, and provocateurs, instigators and also unknown numbers of government assets. The indisputable Mr. Buffalo Horn videos show an inexplicable episode--as if Mr BF was being shown around for photo-op purposes, to be the face of the occupation. Other videos indisputably show Capitol Police opening barricades. I could go on about the Capitol Police showing up light and then standing down, and they report to the legislative branch. There is no evidence that the Trump people were connected to the Jan 6 scrum. I disapprove of violence in any form, btw.  

We are worlds apart in our perspectives and what we consider relevant facts. That's fine...this is a forum. I look forward to your contributions. 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I realize that you have not printed out and memorized all my posts.

But I have presented my views on variations of these topics before, probably too many times. 

1. Russiagate Hoax: I agree with the Matt Taibbis, the Glenn Greenwalds, and even the Peter Strzoks, that "there is no there, there."  One can conjecture what happened in certain meetings...but conjectures and accusations are not evidence. The Biden Justice Department has had two years now....We just have to agree to disagree. We could spend hours on even minute points of Russiagate Hoax...did Manafort know Kilimnik was an FSB asset, or even was Kilimnik an FSB asset? Do intel-assets go around telling people, "BTW, I am a spy?" That is called "blowing your cover," and might even have fatal consequences. See also the 24,000-word CJR four-part series on the topic, free online. I largely agree with that article.  

2. My take is Fox-Carlson is on the outs with the national security state---did you see Carlson say Pompeo must have known who killed JFK. Egads! Meanwhile, there are platoons of ex intel-state guys holding forth at CNN and MSNBC. Too many to count. Let's disagree on this one. 

3. Matt Taibbi, and many, many other solid reporters, from across the spectrum, have reviewed the Twittergate Files and concluded Twitter was running government-approved or influenced algorithms , and also silencing ordinary Americans who had non-orthodox views. This is a short-hand statement for what went on. I don't understand why one would turn Twittergate evidence over to authorities---when it is the authorities that are doing the bad stuff. We disagree on this one.

4. On Jan. 6, surely there were crazies in the crowd, and provocateurs, instigators and also unknown numbers of government assets. The indisputable Mr. Buffalo Horn videos show an inexplicable episode--as if Mr BF was being shown around for photo-op purposes, to be the face of the occupation. Other videos indisputably show Capitol Police opening barricades. I could go on about the Capitol Police showing up light and then standing down, and they report to the legislative branch. There is no evidence that the Trump people were connected to the Jan 6 scrum. I disapprove of violence in any form, btw.  

We are worlds apart in our perspectives and what we consider relevant facts. That's fine...this is a forum. I look forward to your contributions. 

Ben, let's begin with your 
1. Russiagate Hoax:

Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume II of II

. . . Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf

 

Analysis by the American Constitution Society*

The actual text of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report tells a very different story than what was in summaries produced by Attorney General William Barr in letters to Congress and in a press conference prior to the report’s release. A comparison of the report and Barr’s statements shows that Barr downplayed Mueller’s findings about Russian contacts with Trump campaign associates as well as the damning evidence of the president’s obstruction of justice that Mueller assembled. Following are examples of this gap.
 

1. Whether the President Is Exonerated on Obstruction of Justice

Special Counsel Report: The report makes the statement: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” It further states, “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Election, Vol. 2, page 2 (March 2019) (“Special Counsel Report”))

 

Barr Statements: The Attorney General omitted the Special Counsel office’s allusion to their lack of confidence in exonerating evidence as well as repeated findings that there was substantial evidence supporting the key elements of obstruction. Instead, Barr offered his own conclusions about the obstruction case against the president, stating, “I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” (Letter from Attorney General Bill Barr to House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, p. 3 (March 24, 2019) (the “Barr Letter”))

see full analysis here.  https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/stark-contrasts-between-the-mueller-report-and-attorney-general-barrs-summary/

* Russ Feingold, President ACS
During his 18 years in the United States Senate, Russ was ranked 6th in the Senate for bipartisan voting. He is a recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award and cosponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act), the only major piece of campaign finance reform legislation passed into law in decades. Russ was the only Senator to vote against the initial enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act during the first vote on the legislation and was well-known for his opposition to the Iraq War and as the Senate's leading opponent of the death penalty. He served on the Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Budget, and Intelligence Committees. Russ was Chairman or Ranking Member of the Constitution Subcommittee.