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.

Addressing the question regarding whether Trump was reimbursing Michael Cohen or paying Cohen for legal work, prosecutor Josh Steinglass said of Trump, "It's just inconceivable that he would be so involved in buying these women's silence and then stick his head in the sand when it comes to Cohen's reimbursement."

Steinglass showed the jury a 2018 tweet in which Trump called the payments a reimbursement.

"Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA," the tweet said.

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.