Questions Linger for Liu After Ex-Associates" Trial When John C. Liu hastily announced late Thursday that he would hold a news conference that night to discuss the convictions of two former associates in an illegal campaign-finance scheme, speculation began to build: Would he criticize the guilty parties and vow not to tolerate similar conduct? Would he be rattled, or even abandon the race for mayor? None of the above. Instead, Mr. Liu, the New York City comptroller, almost treated the event in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, like a routine rally, shaking hands with residents and commenting on the weather. And he said, confidently, that, yes, he was still running for mayor. Even so, questions remain about Mr. Liu's political viability and legal exposure, and have perhaps taken on a bit more urgency. Politically, Mr. Liu, a Democrat, is likely to continue his candidacy unbowed, despite lagging poll numbers. "This is not going to deter him, not in the least," said George Arzt, who served as Mr. Liu's spokesman after the initial arrests of the former associates, but is now unaffiliated with any mayoral campaign. He's a very, very tough man. Had Jia Hou, Mr. Liu's former campaign treasurer, and Xing Wu Pan, a former fund-raiser, been acquitted, Mr. Liu might have gained some momentum. But their convictions may give unions and other potential supporters reason to hold back, political analysts say, and will probably benefit William C. Thompson Jr., a former comptroller who has been competing with Mr. Liu for minority votes, or perhaps Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, who is ideologically similar. Or maybe not. "I think there will be a lot of people who will say this is a game changer, but I just don't think it's true," said Jefrey Pollock, the president of Global Strategy Group, who is not affiliated with any mayoral campaign. Any of the negatives regarding a swirl of questions about John Liu have already been baked into the numbers today - it's the reason Liu has had higher unfavorables than some of the other candidates. Mr. Liu's biggest problem could be whether the city's Campaign Finance Board will give him matching funds under the city's public finance system. The board has fairly wide latitude to reject a campaign's request for taxpayer dollars. But others say that Mr. Liu faces long odds. "It's hard to imagine more severe violations of the campaign finance act, especially given that there have been two criminal convictions in connection to their campaign," said Tara Malloy, a former Campaign Finance Board lawyer who is now senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group in Washington. During the trial, Mr. Liu's name was invoked repeatedly. One prosecutor told the jury that Mr. Liu had to have known about the illegal scheme - an assertion Mr. Liu's lawyer later denied. One question is whether Ms. Hou might now seek to cooperate with the government against Mr. Liu in the hope of obtaining leniency when she is sentenced. Her lawyer, Gerald B. Lefcourt, declined to comment. But there has never been any suggestion that Ms. Hou considered cooperating or would in the future. A current Liu campaign staff member, Sharon Lee, also remains vulnerable. Prosecutors accused her of offering to reimburse her mother, an aunt and a few friends for donations. She was not charged, but was subpoenaed to testify. She could have received immunity, but decided to testify without protection. Her lawyer, Andrew M. Lankler, said during the trial that his client, a former press secretary to Mr. Liu, did not need immunity because she had not been part of any scheme, and ultimately had not reimbursed anyone. Mr. Lankler declined to comment on Friday. But Ms. Hou's lawyer, Mr. Lefcourt, called Ms. Lee's decision to testify without immunity "extremely honorable and very brave." "It was against the advice of her lawyer," Mr. Lefcourt said, "which was very simply: get out of harm's way and let them do whatever they're going to do - but protect yourself." Mr. Lefcourt said he believed Ms. Lee had not wanted to be placed in a position where a prosecutor could have asked whether she had received immunity from prosecution, which, he said, "would in effect be telling the jury that there was a crime committed." In some ways, Ms. Lee's decision was a reminder of how the case had as much to do with politics as law, and how actions inside the courtroom also played to a larger audience outside. As for Ms. Hou, she too began speaking to a larger audience after the verdict, posting messages on Weibo, a Chinese-language social media site. "Even though I am young," she wrote, "even though I do not have experience, and even though I do not know how to protect myself from entrapment, when the results were announced, I was more relaxed and calm than any of you who were at the prosecution table. "That kind of strength in my heart," she wrote, "you will never, never, never defeat." Prosecutors declined to comment. Jeffrey E. Singer contributed reporting.