No..where in what i said indicated I agree he falsified records.
Youre predicating your view that DT knew of the payout to SD and yet even if he did and he says he didnt and MC said he didn't..that isnt a crime.
And if DT believed the payment to MC was a legal payment and you haven't led any evidence aside from MC that it was anything but... then he acted in good faith in declaring it a legal payment. Is that 100% for sure? Sure...that's a no. But given the proof needs to be led and the proof is the testimony of a proven liar..does it get to "beyond reasonable doubt"? Not a chance
But even if you get that over the line... show me the proof DT knowingly declared the payment as one thing or the other to influence an election and not to protect name, family and brand.
BTW... how do you get the jury to believe MC V.'24 over all the other MC versions where he says the opposite? And....says the opposite when his ass was on the line and to avoid major legal consequences?
You as a jury member...how does that not impugn everything or at least bring into question... everything he is saying
