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.

"It's difficult to conceive a case with more corroboration than this one," prosecutor Josh Steinglass told jurors. "You don't have to think too much about this one."

Steinglass argued that jurors have seen a "mountain of evidence."

"This case is not about Michael Cohen. This case is about Donald Trump and whether he should be held accountable for making false entries in his own business records, whether he and his staff did that to cover up for his own election violations," Steinglass said, describing Cohen as a tour guide through the evidence.

"The question is not whether you like Cohen or whether you want to go into business with Cohen. It's whether he has useful, reliable information," Steinglass said. "He was in the best position to know."

Steinglass called the defense's focus on Cohen "deflection -- like the defendant's own tweets"

"The defense goes on and on about Michael Cohen is immoral or a liar or a thief," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said of the state's star witness.

"We didn't choose Michael Cohen to be a witness. We didn't pick him up at witness store. The defendant chose him as a fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat," he said, drawing a few laughs from the jury.

Steinglass then displayed a passage from one of Trump's books to exemplify why he hired someone like Michael Cohen in the first place.

"As a matter of fact, I value loyalty above everything else -- more than brains, more than drive, and more than energy," the passage read.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche highlighted that American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, normally helped campaigns with suppressing negative information.

"This is the same thing AMI had been doing for decades," Blanche said. "They had been doing it for President Trump since the 90s."

"Nothing criminal about it -- it's done all the time," Blanche said.

Blanche added that AMI worked with Rahm Emanuel and Arnold Schwarzenegger during their campaigns and that published David Pecker thought his arrangement with Trump was "good business."

"There is zero criminal intent in that 2015 meeting," Cohen said about the Trump Tower meeting where prosecutors argued that the conspiracy originated.

Blanche calls the idea that "sophisticated people" like Trump and Pecker "believed positive stories in the National Enquirer could influence the 2016 election is preposterous."

Blanche highlighted the limited circulation of the National Enquirer -- about 350,000 at the time of the alleged scheme -- prevented the publication from having a meaningful impact on voters.