Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-07-01 20:35:29 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 9CDB80D3F4ABEB61A7DAFE24CC63066BFC856307E25C2C964BFDB2F64DDA0701
Participant Details

Original Note:

“Because these courts categorically rejected any form of Presidential Immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.” -Page 24 of the ruling https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1807859445961314422
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 9CDB80D3F4ABEB61A7DAFE24CC63066BFC856307E25C2C964BFDB2F64DDA0701
  • createdAtMillis - 1719866129915
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 18078594459613144229CDB80D3F4ABEB61A7DAFE24CC63066BFC856307E25C2C964BFDB2F64DDA0701