Prosecutor Josh Steinglass laid out the DA's case for why Trump should be found guilty of falsifying records, even if he didn't pen them himself and just directed it to be done.

"Tarasoff may be doing the typing, but the defendant is causing the false business records," Steinglass said, referring to Trump Organization accountant Deborah Tarasoff.

Steinglass said Trump "doesn't want to leave a paper trail" and instead would "have his lackeys do it."

"If Trump didn't know about the scheme, why was he just signing the checks 'for services rendered' for $35,000 each month?" Steinglass asked.

"Does he call Cohen and say, 'Why'd I pay you $35000 for nothing?' No. He just signs it. Every month. He never once picks up the phone, he never once makes further inquiry," said Steinglass.

"Despite his frugality and attention to detail, the defendant didn't ask any questions. Because he already knew the answers."

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass' tone reached a crescendo as he ticked through a "mountain of evidence" he said that jurors would have to ignore to acquit Donald Trump.

"You'd have to disregard the fact" that Cohen wasn't paid in 2018, Steinglass said, and that Donald Trump repeatedly acknowledges in court papers, political filings and his own Twitter account that he knew the payments to Cohen were reimbursements.

"That means by definition he knew that the payment records ... were false," Steinglass said.

Jurors would also have to accept that "the amount he was paid just happens to magically" match what he paid for Stormy Daniels' story.

"Does anyone believe that?" Steinglass asked.

Trump, at the defense table, glanced at the monitor displaying the invoices that Steinglass was referencing. He shrugged his shoulders and shook his head before returning to a slouched position.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass emphasizing why the jury should not believe the 2017 payments to Michael Cohen were legal fees.

"The testimony was that he did less than 10 hours of legal work [in 2017] ... Cohen spent more time being cross-examined for this trial than he did doing legal work for Trump in 2017," Steinglass said.

"The fact is, Cohen did pretty well here. He got a cool title -- Personal Attorney to the President -- that he used to his advantage to get consulting gigs.

"He was making more money than any government job would ever pay -- and boy, do I know that," Steinglass joked, receiving a few chuckles from the jury.

"The defense must maintain that these were legal fees, because to say anything else is to admit that the business records are false -- and they can't do that," Steinglass said.

As ABC News reported previously, the U.S. Secret Service spent considerable time working with New York City court and jail officials to determine what would happen if the judge, as threatened during trial, ordered former President Trump to be incarcerated for contempt -- a situation that did not come to pass.

According to an official briefed on the matter, U.S. Secret Service planners have not started the process of determining arrangements for Trump to be imprisoned at a New York state penitentiary in the event he is convicted. Because Trump is charged with nonviolent crimes, has no criminal record, and was allowed to remain free before trial, it is believed that there is no way that a conviction would lead to immediate incarceration.

If Trump is convicted, the Secret Service will spend the time prior to sentencing -- which could be months -- working with New York state prison officials to determine how imprisonment would work. An official told ABC News that potential questions could include, would USSS agents be armed inside prisons where firearms are prohibited? What prison would Trump be assigned to? Where would protection agents be stationed in relation to Trump? Those details, among many others, would have to be hammered out, the official said.

The Secret Service specifically avoided planning on a possible prison sentence during the trial so Trump and his loyalists could not accuse them of taking sides against the former president, the official said.

-Josh Margolin

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.