Trump trial: Biden calls Trump's remarks 'dangerous'

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass told jurors that allegations from women in October 2016 posed a significant risk to Trump's campaign.

"This race could not have been closer," Steinglass said, arguing that Trump knew the allegations were "capable of costing him the whole election, and he knew it."

Steinglass replayed a video of an October 2016 Trump rally in Greensboro, North Carolina to demonstrate Trump's concern.

"It caused pandemonium in the Trump campaign," Steinglass said about the "Access Hollywood" tape.

Trump, at the defense table, looked at the evidence before shifting back in his chair. After shaking his head in disagreement, he whispered back and forth with his attorney Emil Bove.

Steinglass argued that Trump was particularly concerned about the Daniels allegations because they could undermine his response to the "Access Hollywood" tape.

"Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that the defendant was not only words," Steinglass said. "She would have totally undermined his strategy for spinning the 'Access Hollywood' tape."

Hitting back at the defense's suggestion that the "Access Hollywood" tape "wasn't a big deal to the defendant -- it was just another blip," Steinglass said, "You really can't understand this case without appreciating the climate in the wake of the 'Access Hollywood' tape ... it caused pandemonium in the Trump campaign."

More than an a hour and a half into his summation, prosecutor Josh Steinglass finally turned his attention to the Stormy Daniels hush money payment.

Steinglass resumed his summation by discussing the impact of the "Access Hollywood" tape, which prosecutors argued was the impetus for the Daniels hush money payment.

"It all began with this email from this Washington Post reporter named David Fahrenthold," Steinglass said, displaying the exhibit. Fahrenthold had reached out to then-Trump aide Hope Hicks with a transcript of the "Access Hollywood" remarks to ask for the campaign's comment.

Steinglass recapped some of Hicks' testimony, saying her "initial instinct was to deny the video's legitimacy." But once the campaign saw the video, "that strategy quickly shifted from 'deny, deny, deny' to 'spin.'"

Steinglass then played a video of Trump's reaction to the "Access Hollywood" tape in which he expressed his regret.

On Oct. 8, Steinglass says, there was a "flurry of activity" as Trump's campaign sought to spin the Access Hollywood tape. Michael Cohen asked then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker about a RadarOnline article "about Trump being a playboy" and asked him to remove it, which he did.

"This is not catch-and-kill exactly, but they are purging the internet at the direction of the campaign," Steinglass said.

After the parties returned from break, Judge Merchan said the next break would be around 5 p.m. ET.

"And then we'll see how everybody's doing." he said, regarding the question of whether they'll be able to finish closing arguments by the end of the day.

"The defense has gone to laughable lengths" to make "feeble" arguments to undermine the recording of Donald Trump and Michael Cohen discussing a reimbursement to A.M.I. for the Karen McDougal payment, prosecutor Josh Steinglass said.

Steinglass mocked defense attorney Todd Blanche's effort to cast doubt on the recording because Cohen picked up another call.

"Here's a newsflash: people use their phones," Steinglass said.

Steinglass accused Blanche of using this argument to "muddy the waters" of this case.

"The fact is, no number of misleading questions, wild speculation ... can distract you from one simple fact: the metadata for this file proves it was not tampered with in any way."

"This recording is nothing short of jaw dropping," Steinglass said before replaying the recording.

"This tape unequivocally shows a presidential candidate actively engaging in scheme to influence the election by reimbursing AMI for killing the McDougal story, and that's why they are desperate to discredit it," Steinglass said.

"This recording shows the defendant's cavalier willingness to hide this payment," he said. "This shows the defendant suggesting paying in cash. It doesn't even matter if that means a bag of cash or a lump sum. It doesn't matter because he's trying to do it in a way that's not going to leave a paper trail -- that's the point."

Court was then recessed for the mid-afternoon break, with the prosecution's closing argument expected to take at least another two hours.