Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-02-23 20:41:49 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 0A47E1A8569ABCA0E66CB634C5416B31CE7BBCED820E7C935C3E62C1F5A800F2
Participant Details
Original Note:
The judge, chose to ignore the bank testimony, ignore expert testimony, and ignore defendant testimony. Instead, he says a known perjurer testimony was the credible one. The post is consistent with the judge's opinion. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432591/ruling-in-donald-trumps-civil-fraud-trial.pdf
All Note Details