Defense attorney Todd Blanche listed 10 reasons why he says the jury should have reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. The first four:

- "You should have real reasonable doubt is that Cohen created those invoices," Blanche said. "They are accurate and President Trump did not have any intent to defraud."

- "There is no proof that President Trump ever, ever saw anything that Ms. Tarasoff or Mr. McConney did," Blanche said referring to the Trump Organization employees who processed the invoices, adding that Trump was busy running the country when he signed the associated checks.

- "There is absolutely no evidence of an intent to defraud," Blanche said, highlighting the forms that disclosed the Cohen payment to authorities.

- Blanche argued that Trump has "absolutely no intent to unlawfully influence the 2016 election."

Defense attorney Todd Blanche continued to argue that the jury cannot trust Cohen's testimony as a whole based on the misstatements they highlighted.

"We happened to catch him in a lie," Blanche said. "We put them into evidence, and now you know it happened."

Blanche argued that the lie highlighted that Cohen didn't care about his oath to tell the truth.

"For that we have an oath, we have an oath that every witness takes when they testify before you the jury. It matters -- the oath matters to most. He lied," Blanche said, as the jury watched attentively.

Blanche told the jury that Michael Cohen lied to his banker, his family, his wife, every single reporter he speaks to, prosecutors, and federal judges.

"He lied to you, make no mistake about it," said Blanche.

"He's literally like an MVP of liars," Blanche said of Cohen.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche told jurors that Michael Cohen's one-time legal adviser Robert Costello -- the only substantive defense witness -- offered testimony to demonstrate that Cohen lied on the witness stand.

Blanche argued that Cohen lied about what he asked of Costello and how often they communicated.

"It's just another example of Mr. Cohen taking the witness stand and lying to you," Blanche said, suggesting that Cohen lied on the stand enough times that the jury should consider throwing out his entire testimony.

"I don't know how many lies are enough lies just to reject Mr. Cohen's testimony ... big or small, meaningful or not meaningful, but that was a lie," Blanche said.

Blanche argued that prosecutors attempted to prop up Cohen's credibility by offering phone records to corroborate his testimony, but the strategy backfired.

"They showed him phone records and they showed him calls between him and others to help his testimony seem more corroborate and more credible," Blanche said. "We all know how that ended."

Raising his voice, Blanche reminded the jury about the inconsistency he highlighted in Cohen's testimony about a October 24, 2016, phone call.

"It was a lie!" Blanche shouted. "That was a lie and he got caught red-handed!"

"That is perjury!" Blanche shouted, drawing out each syllable.

"They are perfectly happy to have a witness commit perjury to lie to you," Blanche said, prompting an objection from prosecutors.

"Sustained," said Judge Merchan.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche suggested to the jury why Stormy Daniels was called as a witness, given there was no dispute about a nondisclosure agreement being signed and that she knew nothing about the records in question.

"I'll tell you why -- they did it to try to inflame your emotions. They did it to try to embarrass President Trump" Blanche said.

It drew a loud objection from prosecutors that was overruled.

Trump has disputed the sexual encounter ever happened.

Judge Merchan reread the portion of the instructions about Michael Cohen's testimony because he is an "accomplice" the in alleged crime.

This is a standard legal instruction about the testimony of an accomplice. Per the instructions, the jury cannot convict based solely on Cohen's testimony unless it is corroborated by evidence. If he testified about something to which there is no other evidence or testimony, the jury cannot convict on that testimony alone.

Those instructions read as follows:

Under our law, Michael Cohen is an accomplice because there is evidence that he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant.

Our law is especially concerned about the testimony of an accomplice who implicates another in the commission of a crime, particularly when the accomplice has received, expects or hopes for a benefit in return for his testimony.

Therefore, our law provides that a defendant may not be convicted of any crime upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is supported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of that crime.

In other words, even if you find the testimony of Michael Cohen to be believable, you may not convict the defendant solely upon that testimony unless you also find that it was corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.

The corroborative evidence need not, by itself, prove that a crime was committed or that the defendant is guilty. What the law requires is that there be evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged in such a way as may reasonably satisfy you that the accomplice is telling the truth about the defendant's participation in that crime.

In determining whether there is the necessary corroboration, you may consider whether there is material, believable evidence, apart from the testimony of Michael Cohen, which itself tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.