Prosecutor Josh Steinglass rehashed the phone call that then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker said he had with Trump about the Karen McDougal payment.

During the phone call, Pecker testified that Trump expressed skepticism about the hush money payment.

"Mr. Trump said to me ... 'I don't buy stories.' And he said, 'Anything you do anything like this, it always gets out,'" Pecker testified.

"He thought that these stories always get out and I guess he was right about that," Steinglass told jurors.

"Their motivation was to serve the campaign -- that's what makes this a catch-and-kill" the prosecutor said.

Michael Cohen was Trump's "liaison" to Pecker, "conveying Mr. Trump's instructions every step of the way," Steinglass said.

"Critical here is Pecker's acknowledgement that he never intended to publish the story under any circumstances … Pecker was willing to sacrifice AMI's bottom line in service of the campaign," said Steinglass, emphasizing that that AMI's $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal was not standard operating procedure for the National Enquirer.

Steinglass told jurors that Pecker thought the story, if true, was "National Enquirer gold" -- yet he would not have run the story to help Trump.

"Pecker was willing to sacrifice AMI's bottom line in service of Donald Trump's campaign," Steinglass said. "This deal was the very antithesis of a normal press function."

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass, turning to the $150,000 payment that AMI made to Playboy model Karen McDougal, described the payment as a "unlawful corporation campaign contribution."

"This transaction amounted to an unlawful corporation campaign contribution by AMI to the Trump campaign," Steinglass said.

"There is not a lot of room for debate here," Steinglass said. "[Dylan] Howard is acting in cahoots with the candidate to kill the story," he said of the National Enquirer editor.

Steinglass emphasized a phone call that then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified he had with Trump about the McDougal payment.

"With all of the evidence and documents in this case, it's easy to lose sight of the significance of this phone call," Steinglass said. "Trump is deputizing Cohen right in front of Pecker."

"Any go-ahead from Cohen is a go-ahead from Trump," Steinglass said.

Steinglass emphasized that the testimony about the phone call is significant because it demonstrates the conspiracy separate from the testimony of Michael Cohen.

"This is powerful evidence of the defendant's involvement wholly apart from Cohen," Steinglass said.

The first hour of prosecutor Josh Steinglass' summation sounded impromptu, as if he was extemporaneously delivering a direct response to the defense's closing.

As his closing entered its second hour, Steinglass unveiled a slideshow and timeline to make his argument -- slowing down the pace of his delivery and bringing the jury back to the first witness in the case, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.

Steinglass walked the jury through the $30,000 payment American Media Inc. made to doorman Dino Sajudin for the rights to his false story about Trump having a child out of wedlock. He outlined timeline of the catch and kill, emphasizing the steps taken to ensure Sajudin did not become a problem for the campaign.

According to Steinglass, Cohen added a $1 million breach of contract penalty "just to put the fear of God into Sajudin."

"Mr. Sajudin had been completely neutralized as a threat to the campaign," Steinglass said about the payment.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass argued that Trump's catch-and-kill arrangement with the National Enquirer was a "subversion of democracy."

Steinglass pushed back against defense attorney Todd Blanche's argument in his closing that Trump's agreement with Enquirer parent AMI was democracy at work. During his opening statement, Blanche said, "I have a spoiler alert. There is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy."

"In reality, this agreement at Trump Tower was the exact opposite. It was the subversion of democracy," Steinglass said, arguing that it was an attempt "to pull the wool over [voter's] eyes in a coordinated fashion" and that it was meant to "manipulate and defraud the voters."

Referenceing the Trump Tower meeting in 2015, Steinglass said, "This scheme cooked up by these men at this time, could very well be what got President Trump elected."

"It turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions anyone ever made to Trump," he argued.