If an issue that goes to an appellate court is an issue of law, the appellate court reviews de novo, which means that no deference is given to the lower court.

See:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/de_novo

With an issue of fact, appellate courts are more deferential to lower courts.

I didn't read the decision but this is from ABC⤵️

As far as what the judge was thinking, your guess is as good as mine, but from this, I'd guess that . . .

2/

. . . the judge found more textual support for finding that the president is not an officer than for the finding that he is.

Picture a balance scale with slightly more weight on one side.

So now it goes to the appellate court, which might have more nerve than the trial court.

The important part of the finding, though, was that he incited an insurrection.

The appellate court can overturn that, but it unlikely and more difficult because of the greater deference to findings of facts.

3/

Welcome to the world of constitutional and statutory interpretation.

Basically, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter and the Constitution is stuffed full of phrases and words that can be interpreted in different ways.

An interpretation of the word "reasonable" in the Fourth Amendment has literally filled books.

4/