In your opinion, should Donald Trump be convicted on some or all charges in his New York hush-money trial?

👍 Yes (54%) – "I believe the prosecution provided sufficient proof under the law to convict Trump. The defense did not have any credible proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not commit these crimes as a part of his presidential campaign."

• "It is common practice to purchase influence and to cover up crimes for political expediency. I'm getting tired of hearing that rich people get special treatment because they can literally pay away their troubles. If I were under a gag order, I would have been jailed on the first time."

"With the evidence laid out it is obvious there was a cover up. The defense made no legitimate argument otherwise. I do worry about the fallout that a guilty verdict would have on the state of division we’re currently in."

• "A crime is a crime. If he’s found guilty, he should receive the consequences for his actions. Even if his relatively small felonies yield feeble penalties, the blow to his public image is irreparable but necessary to maintaining the honesty and integrity of the public election."

"This country was built on democracy. Allowing the rich and powerful to circumvent laws is distinctly un-democratic. It sets the precedent for nefarious and illegal activities for those in power with little fear of consequences."

👎 No (37%) – "This case would never have gone to trial if it were any other defendant at any other time. The prosecution's primary witness is a confessed perjurer, the basis for the charges is unique and untested, and the judge's behavior during the trial ensures an appeal will be heard and likely be successful, with multiple parties being censured for unprofessional conduct. It is a clearly partisan attempt to interfere with federal elections (which is ironic, since that's the overarching charge against the defendant). Justice should be blind to power, money, personal circumstances and political party. It should not favor nor disfavor a defendant in pursuit of truth. When it does, it is no longer Justice. Judges and juries should make every attempt to put their personal dislikes aside and seek what is legal and what is true. To do otherwise is to sink into tribalism and degrade democracy."

• "This is all a political witch hunt to take down Bidens political opponent heading into the elections. Democrats are scared they will lose the power to control us all by the courts with political judges, CIA, FBI, and all the 3 letter governments in DC."

"We live in an 'innocent until proven guilty' justice system (or at least we say we do) and there needs to be proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was involved in the cover up and payment - not the affair - in this case. We all know that people who work for powerful or influential individuals like to take care of problems before they become bigger problems to seem valuable. It's plausible he wasn't actually involved in the cover up, or that he found out about it after the fact because the people around him wanted him to focus on the campaign to ultimately boost their own careers or positions if he were to become POTUS. I'm not on the jury and don't have all the info but from what I see, there isn't enough there to convict him. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, just that he wasn't involved beyond a shadow of a doubt."

• "No. I don't like Trump, and I don't want him in office, but the endless barrage of court cases only serves to make him a more sympathetic politician. There's no doubt that there is bias in all of these cases, and many are trivial and/or shouldn't be in court at all."

🤷 Unsure/other (9%) – "I don't know the truth, or what the facts really are. Why should I play judge over these two claims? Let the law run its course."