> He had a long history of intent towards Trump leading up to and during his campaign for office. Noting that most Democrats have said something negative about

> He had a long history of intent towards Trump leading up to and during his campaign for office. Noting that most Democrats have said something negative about Trump in their careers, would you say that Trump cannot be investigated by Democrats due to conflict of interest? > Robert I’m wholly uninterested I. What “Robert” from some other forum has to say, I don’t know why you are bringing him up here. Is he an expert? An jurist? A lawyer? Either way he in making the error many here keep making, and that is, I’ll say it again, they did not have to prosecute or prove a federal case. That was not the law. The law was to prove intent, and the jury found intent. That is a prosecution of NY state law, even if the intent was to violate federal law. If you want to show the prosecution was not right, you’ll have to argue against the intent part, not that state prosecutors are barred from prosecuting federal crimes — because no federal crime was prosecuted by state prosecutors in this case. Trump has not been found guilty of a federal crime in this case and the NY state law didn’t require him to have been. A lot of the objection about the verdict seems to come down to a being unhappy that the law as written is being applied to someone people support. I can sympathize — it’s tough when people you admire are revealed to be criminals and dirt bags. People are going through some feelings, I can appreciate that. Still, it’s interesting to me, because in all these words I don’t see people here defending the conduct or saying it didn’t happen, which is the key takeaway for me. > It will be a pretty ugly stain on the judge's career once all of this is said and done. You’re speaking very confidently here about a very unusual and unprecedented situation, and you are citing “Robert from another forum” as an authority, so I am not sure where this confidence comes from but suffice to say I’m not as certain about the future as you are. I wish I was > This NY-specific precedent is very controversial, and many other states routinely give written copies of instructions to juries so they can review it as they need. Okay but it is common in NY, it was done out of an abundance of caution to preserve and maintain the integrity of the trial, and in the end all the jurors affirmed under oath and on the record that they were not confused by the instructions. So we are not left to wonder and this isn’t a basis for appeal.