Moving on to the arrangement with Playboy model Karen McDougal, defense attorney Todd Blanche argued there was no catch and kill at all.

"What is clear from what you heard ... this was not a catch and kill either," Blanche said. "Karen McDougal did not want her story published," Blanche said, saying she wanted to kickstart her career. "How is that a catch and kill? It's not."

"To be clear, it was not Mrs. McDougal's intention to publish her story," Blanche said, seeking to undercut prosecutors' theory this was an ongoing conspiracy to influence the election.

“There was never any risk that her allegations would influence the election because she didn’t want her allegations published,” Blanche said.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche says turned his attention to the three alleged catch-and-kill schemes cited by prosecutors, telling the jury that such arrangements were a normal industry practice and not illegal.

"There is nothing unusual ... about catching and killing," Blanche said.

He started with Dino Sajudin, the Trump Organization doorman who made unfounded claims about a love-child Trump supposedly fathered. Blanche called it "literally a made-up story."

Blanche used National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's initial desire to publish the story to undercut the idea of a conspiracy.

"The government wants you to believe that in Aaugust 2015 there was a super conspiratorial criminal meeting, where Mr. Pecker is going to criminally help Trump, and the first opportunity, he says, Oh no, I'm publishing this," Blanche said.

"What kind of a conspiracy is that?!" Blanche asked.

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.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche sought to undermine a key moment in the state's story of the case -- the White House meeting in February 2017, in which Cohen said he and Trump discussed the plan to repay him.

Blanche showed jurors an email in which Cohen asked a Trump Organization employee to remind him what the agreed-upon monthly sum would be, which was sent less than a week after the meeting.

Blanche said the email demonstrated that there was no discussion of an agreement -- no "tight conspiracy."

"Six days later Cohen doesn't even know how much he's supposed to be paid,' Blanche said.

He also argued against the idea that the parties conspired to win the election.

"It doesn't matter if there was a conspiracy to try and win an election," Blanche said. "By the way, even that -- even if you find that's true -- that's still not enough. It doesn't matter if there was a conspiracy to try to win an election. Every campaign in this country is a conspiracy to promote a candidate."

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.