"So you have a lawyer recording his client," defense attorney Todd Blanche said of Michael Cohen's 2016 recording of a meeting with Trump.

"There is a lot of dispute about that recording. A lot," Blanche said. "The government has not shown you that that evidence is reliable."

Blanche again played the recording for the jury.

Blanche said Trump never said the words "150" about McDougal in the call, disputing what the transcript prosecutors made says.

"Listen to the recording, see if you hear 150," Blanche said. "There is a lot of doubt that it discussed Karen McDougal."

"What did you just hear? 'Transfer of all the stuff'," Blanche said, saying that was actually about a box of stuff related to Trump that was at the National Enquirer offices.

Trump, at the defense table, appears fully engaged, with one arm propped on the back of his chair, looking directly at Blanche's back.

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.

As Judge Merchan reread the jury instructions, the jury again hears what exactly is reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law.

"A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence," Merchan said.

The jury also heard again how to judge the credibility of a witness.

"You must decide whether a witness told the truth and was accurate, or instead, testified falsely or was mistaken," Merchan said.
Trump's team had hammered the credibility of Michael Cohen, saying he had an "ax to grind" -- and who they will rehear testimony from again later this morning.

"You may consider whether a witness had, or did not have, a motive to lie," Merchan instructed them. "If a witness had a motive to lie, you may consider whether and to what extent, if any, that motive affected the truthfulness of that witness's testimony."