Prosecutor Josh Steinglass argued that Michael Cohen kept Trump in the loop because he sought Trump's credit.

"If Cohen accomplished something for Mr. Trump, he wanted Mr. Trump to know immediately," Steinglass said.

Steinglass highlighted testimony from former Trump aide Hope Hicks to highlight Cohen's credit-seeking nature.

"I didn't know Michael to be an especially charitable person, um, or selfless person. He's the kind of person who seeks credit," Hicks testified.

"Why would the defendant be kept in the dark about the Daniels' NDA?" Steinglass asked the jury, referring to the nondisclosure agreement. "It defies common sense."

More than four hours into his summation, Prosecutor Josh Steinglass returned to the timelines of the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels payoffs.

Steinglass argued that Cohen attempted to delay the Stormy Daniels payment until after the 2016 election at the direction of Trump.

"You think Cohen would have the audacity to take that chance without the defendant saying so?" Steinglass said. "Cohen did that -- that strategy of delay -- because that's what the defendant told him to."

"There is just no way -- no way -- that Cohen wouldn't have told Mr. Trump about Daniels during that phone call. Why wouldn't he have?" Steingless said.

"Is this timing just all a coincidence, every single one of these things? Mr. Trump was being kept abreast of every development."

"Michael Cohen is not some rogue actor here," Steinglass said. "He is acting at the direction of the defendant."

After the parties returned to the courtroom following the final break, Judge Merchan told prosecutor Josh Steinglass he needs to wrap up his summation by 8 p.m.

"You've been going for four hours now, and the jury has been clear they need to go by 8 o'clock," the judge said.

"Thanks for sticking with me," Steinglass told the jury before diving back into his closing argument.

After Michael Cohen implicated Trump in the hush money scheme in August 2018, Trump was "furious," prosecutor Josh Steinglass told the jury.

"His fixer had done the unthinkable, and Trump immediately went on the attack -- an attack that continues to this day," he said.

Steinglass showed a tweet Trump posted the following day: "If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen!"

"This is the day after he pled guilty," Steinglass said.

Steinglass argued that Trump's tweets after Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 were warning messages to other potential witnesses who could cooperate against him.

"These tweets were not only designed to punish Cohen," Steinglass said. "Cooperate or you will face the wrath of Donald Trump," was the message they conveyed.

Steinglass described a "vexatious and punitive lawsuit" Trump filed against Michael Cohen and a defamation suit against Stormy Daniels as evidence of his punitive means against people who epoks out against him.

After a series of sustained objections regarding Trump's tweets and their alleged impact on Cohen's safety, Judge Merchan smiled and told the jury, "This might be a good time to take our last recess of the day."

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.