What is missing in this record, according to defendants, is any evidence of a discussion between Governor Siegelman and Scrushy to the effect of "I will make this contribution, and in exchange for this contribution you will appoint me["]... We disagree ... Bailey’s testimony was competent evidence that Siegelman and Scrushy had agreed to a deal in which Scrushy’s donation would be rewarded with a seat on the CON Board. The jurors were free to give it a different construction, but they did not. Furthermore, this was not the sole evidence that Scrushy bribed Siegelman. The jury was entitled to construe this conversation in the context of the substantial additional testimony they had heard regarding Scrushy’s donation to the lottery campaign fund.