The jury finding was that he was not personally liable for investor losses, not that his tweet was in fact accurate.
The facts are not in dispute here. He tweeted "funding secured" and funding was not secured. He announced intentions to take it private at a given price, which did not happen.
He misrepresented the financial state of his company.
Musk was railroaded by the judge and the Saudis on that one.
Luckily the jury had sense that the tweet was harmless in the end.
The judge ignored his stake in SpaceX he could have leveraged and mainly the Saudi Arabia firm that he was in talks with in taking Tesla private would not testify and then said the exact opposite:
Well, courts have also persecuted and jailed innocent people so if you don't trust what a jury of your peers say you should also have a hard time trusting what a "court finds".
Do you agree with that logic or do you trust the courts over your peers?
(ie. what "metric" would you use "for what constitutes truth"?)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/03/cars/musk-tesla-tweet-lawsuit...
The end result is left out every time the "court finds" articles are linked. The jury found the opposite, which is what actually matters.