Prosecutor Josh Steinglass emphasized a Feb. 8, 2017, White House meeting between Michael Cohen and Trump, where Cohen said Trump confirmed the plan to repay him for the Daniels hush money payment.

While defense lawyers have tried to distance Trump from the first few checks to Cohen -- which were signed by representatives of Trump's trust rather than Trump himself -- Steinglass argued that Trump reassured Cohen about the first two payments during their meeting.

"There is evidence that Trump knew, and it's right here," Steinglass said.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass returned to the defense's argument that Trump "grossing up" the Cohen reimbursement -- effectively doubling the payment to account for the taxes Cohen would have to pay -- suggests the payment is suspicious for the famously frugal Trump.

"But it was worth it -- it was worth it to hide the truth about what this money was really for -- a reimbursement for the Daniels payoff," Steinglass said.

Steinglass was basically giggling to the jury as he tried to poke holes in the defense theory about the payments were legitimate expenses for legal work.

"These documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh at how Mr. Blanche explained it to you," Steinglass said.

Calling the documents "smoking guns," Steinglass said "they completely blow out of the water the defense claim."

"I'm almost speechless that they're still trying to make this argument that the it was for services rendered," Steinglass said of the payment.

The parties returned from break, during which Trump commented on the prosecutions' arguments on his social media platform, writing, "BORING!" and "FILIBUSTER!"

Back in court, prosecutor Josh Steinglass walked the jury through the evidence and testimony about the meeting when Trump approved Michael Cohen's repayment plan in 2017 -- the arrangement that prompted the falsification of business records.

Steinglass began with the the bank statement that had been entered into evidence.

"Right on the bank statement, Weisselberg and Cohen calculated all the money owed to Cohen," Steinglass said, referring to then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Cohen testified about meeting with Trump and Weisselberg in the days ahead of Trump's inauguration when the payment plan was approved.

"Weisselberg discussed the reimbursement plan with Trump and Cohen," Steinglass said. "Mr. Trump approved the payment plan."

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass continued to lean on the testimony of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, arguing it offered unequivocal evidence that Trump was in on the catch-and-kill plan involving Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Pecker testified that Trump was furious at Pecker after the Wall Street Journal published a story in November 2016 about AMI's payment to McDougal.

"This is the story that he is simultaneously telling the press he knows nothing about," Steinglass said. "Pecker established unequivocally that Trump was in on the McDougal deal."

Trump was "angry because story came out that threatened his standing with female voters," Steinglass said.

"Of course we will never know if this effort to hoodwink the American voter made the difference in the 2016 election, but that's not something we have to prove," Steinglass said. What matters, Steinglass said, is that the scheme was "cloaked in false business records to hide the conspiracy."

Judge Merchan said the jury would take its next break, then the closing would continue.

"I was watching the jurors," said the judge. "They looked pretty alert to me -- I don't think we're losing anyone."

The jury heard an exchange between David Pecker and defense attorney Emil Bove where Bove highlighted that Pecker originally thought the Trump Tower meeting took place in the first week of August 2015. Pecker testified that the meeting actually happened in the middle of August.

Bove used the moment as an opportunity to highlight "gaps" in Pecker's memory and emphasize how long ago the meeting took place.

Q: And you changed your testimony here; right?

A: Yes, when I discovered that it was in the middle -- that it was the middle of August.

Q: And when you say that you "discovered," what you mean is that somebody told you that, notwithstanding what you testified about in the Grand Jury, President Trump was actually not in New York City during the first week of August; correct?

A: I -- I don't recall anyone telling me about that, that Mr. Trump was away in the first week of August.

Q: And then you changed your testimony, this week, on that issue; right?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: Why did you change your testimony?
A: I thought that -- I didn't know the exact date. I thought -- I know it was in the first half of August, so I thought it was the middle of August, that's what I recollected. That's why I corrected my -- the dates, yes.

A: I didn't believe that the exact date was --

Q: I understand. And I don't mean to put you on the spot. What I'm getting at, though, is that these things happened a long time ago; right?

A: Yes.

Q: And even when you're doing your best, and I'm sure you are right now, it's hard to remember exactly what happened when; right?

A: Yes.

Q: And when you are remembering about conversations that you had, it's hard to remember what people said almost ten years ago; correct?

A: You -- Ahhhh, yes.

Q: And so there are some instances where your mind sort of fills in gaps; right?

A: To the best of my knowledge.

Q: And you do your best to explain what happened in a way that makes sense; correct?

A: To what I remember.

Q: Yeah, to what you remember. And you fill in some details to keep things in sequence; right, and to make them sound logical?

A: I try to make them -- to what I remember. And to be truthful.

Q: I understand. But there are some gaps; correct?

A: Yes.