The first hour of prosecutor Josh Steinglass' summation sounded impromptu, as if he was extemporaneously delivering a direct response to the defense's closing.

As his closing entered its second hour, Steinglass unveiled a slideshow and timeline to make his argument -- slowing down the pace of his delivery and bringing the jury back to the first witness in the case, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.

Steinglass walked the jury through the $30,000 payment American Media Inc. made to doorman Dino Sajudin for the rights to his false story about Trump having a child out of wedlock. He outlined timeline of the catch and kill, emphasizing the steps taken to ensure Sajudin did not become a problem for the campaign.

According to Steinglass, Cohen added a $1 million breach of contract penalty "just to put the fear of God into Sajudin."

"Mr. Sajudin had been completely neutralized as a threat to the campaign," Steinglass said about the payment.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass argued that Trump's catch-and-kill arrangement with the National Enquirer was a "subversion of democracy."

Steinglass pushed back against defense attorney Todd Blanche's argument in his closing that Trump's agreement with Enquirer parent AMI was democracy at work. During his opening statement, Blanche said, "I have a spoiler alert. There is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy."

"In reality, this agreement at Trump Tower was the exact opposite. It was the subversion of democracy," Steinglass said, arguing that it was an attempt "to pull the wool over [voter's] eyes in a coordinated fashion" and that it was meant to "manipulate and defraud the voters."

Referenceing the Trump Tower meeting in 2015, Steinglass said, "This scheme cooked up by these men at this time, could very well be what got President Trump elected."

"It turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions anyone ever made to Trump," he argued.

"It's difficult to conceive a case with more corroboration than this one," prosecutor Josh Steinglass told jurors. "You don't have to think too much about this one."

Steinglass argued that jurors have seen a "mountain of evidence."

"This case is not about Michael Cohen. This case is about Donald Trump and whether he should be held accountable for making false entries in his own business records, whether he and his staff did that to cover up for his own election violations," Steinglass said, describing Cohen as a tour guide through the evidence.

"The question is not whether you like Cohen or whether you want to go into business with Cohen. It's whether he has useful, reliable information," Steinglass said. "He was in the best position to know."

Steinglass called the defense's focus on Cohen "deflection -- like the defendant's own tweets"

"The defense goes on and on about Michael Cohen is immoral or a liar or a thief," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said of the state's star witness.

"We didn't choose Michael Cohen to be a witness. We didn't pick him up at witness store. The defendant chose him as a fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat," he said, drawing a few laughs from the jury.

Steinglass then displayed a passage from one of Trump's books to exemplify why he hired someone like Michael Cohen in the first place.

"As a matter of fact, I value loyalty above everything else -- more than brains, more than drive, and more than energy," the passage read.

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.