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.

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.