"There's no special standard for this defendant," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said as he finished his closing. "Donald Trump can't shoot someone during rush hour on Fifth Avenue and get away with it."

The judge sustained the defense's objection to that statement.

"In the interest of justice and in the name of the People of New York, I ask you to find the defendant guilty," Steinglass said, concluding his marathon closing.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass highlighted that the jury does not need to agree about which unlawful means Trump advanced through falsifying business records.

"Any single one of the unlawful means is enough for you to conclude that the Trump Tower conspiracy violated New York state election law," Steinglass said. "You don't have to agree on which unlawful means were involved."

Steinglass said Trump and his associates "devised this elaborate scheme requiring involvement of at least 10 other people."

"That's a whole lot of time, thought and energy to conceal the truth. The defendant used his own business records as the vehicle to disguise the reimbursement because he didn't want anyone finding out about the conspiracy to corrupt the election," he said.

"I apologize for trading brevity for thoroughness but we only get one shot at this, and without jurors like you ... the system doesn't work," Steingless told the jurors, nearing the end of his summation.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass argued that Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels constituted a campaign contribution that grossly exceeded the legal maximum.

"As the judge will explain, paying a candidate's expenses counts as a contribution to that candidate," Steinglass said.

He said there is "no rational argument" that the payment to Daniels "would've been made if not for the election." He pushed back against the defense's claim that the payment was made in service of "protecting Trump's marriage or family from embarrassment."

"The defendant wanted to squash the story for the same reason he wanted to squash the McDougal story, and the Sajudin story -- to avoid the harm these stories might cause to his election prospects," Steinglass said.

Describing his own closing as "summation that never ends," prosecutor Josh Steinglass told the jury that in order to convict, they will have to find the defendant "has to have had the intent to defraud," but didn't need to actually make the records himself.

"Point is, Trump doesn't have to do each of these acts himself -- he can act in concert with others," Steinglass said. "He set in motion a chain of events that led to the creation of the false business records,.

The defense objected to that statement.

"I'll explain the law," Judge Merchan said.

Steinglass said the underlying crime they are alleging as part of the falsifying records charge is that Trump violated New York state election law.

Trump committed "election fraud, by any means necessary -- lawful and unlawful," Steinglass said, telling jurors there is a "mountain of evidence" to prove it.

Judge Merchan sustained another objection from the defense regarding Steinglass' effort to explain the law of the case.

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.