Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that the jury should not consider Michael Cohen's tax crimes as one of the crimes Trump advanced by allegedly falsifying business records when he repaid Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush payment.

Bove argued that Cohen was unaware of the alleged tax crimes when then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg "grossed up" his reimbursement to accommodate for taxes on the payment.

Cohen testified he did not think of the tax law at the time, telling jurors, "I just wanted to get my money back."

Defense attorney Emil Bove tried to make the argument that this particular case is unusual because Trump is not a typical defendant.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo responded that's precisely why the standard language should be used.

"No one is above the law," he said.

Judge Merchan settled the matter and ruled against the defense.

"I understand what you mean when you say it's an important case," he said. "But what you're asking me to do is to change the law, and I'm not going to do that."

Discussing the August 2015 meeting in Trump Tower where prosecutors say Trump, Michael Cohen and then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker agreed to the criminal conspiracy, defense attorney Emil Bove argued Trump's "mere presence" at a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with David Pecker and Michael Cohen where the alleged conspiracy was hatched "could very much be part of the defense here."

Bove said "there's nothing criminal about that at all," despite prosecutors arguing it's where the catch-and-kill scheme originated.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued there is no way the jury could interpret the meeting as a "high minded conversation about democracy."

The defense failed to convince Judge Merchan to add a layer of intent that prosecutors have to prove.

Merchan told the parties he was "concerned about" a proposed addition by defense attorneys related to Trump's intent to defraud.

The defense proposed including an instruction that the state "must establish beyond a reasonable doubt two separate intents" for Trump to commit crimes -- for both falsifying records and the other crime Trump furthered with the falsification.

"This proposed language is just inconsistent with the text of the statute," prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued.

Merchan said he was inclined to use the standard instruction, excluding the proposed defense addition.

"That second level of intent ... is incorporated by reference to the first," Merchan said.

A day after Judge Judge Juan Merchan threatened to remove him from the witness stand, former federal prosecutor Robert Costello will resume his testimony this morning as the second witness in Donald Trump's defense case.

Costello is expected to be the final defense witness before Trump's lawyers rest their case today.

Yesterday, Costello told jurors about his meetings and phone calls with Michael Cohen in 2018 after FBI agents raided his office and hotel room. Costello advised Cohen and helped pass messages to the Trump, according to Cohen, but never formally represented him as his lawyer.

"Michael Cohen said, numerous times, that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times," Costello testified about the hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels that sits at the center of the case.

Cohen told the jury that he lied to Costello about Trump's involvement in the scheme to use hush-money payments to hide information from voters.

Costello's reactions to Judge Merchan after taking the stand yesterday afternoon -- responding "jeez" to a sustained objection, rolling his eyes at the judge, and appearing to staring him down -- prompted Merchan to clear the courtroom before threatening to remove Costello from the witness stand.

While defense lawyers suggested yesterday that they would not call Trump to the witness stand, they will likely have to confirm a final decision about the defendant's testimony -- or lack thereof -- before they rest their case.

Judge Merchan has scheduled a charge conference at 2:15 p.m. ET to hear arguments over how to instruct the jury about the law in the case.