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

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."

The jury heard a readback of David Pecker's testimony about Donald Trump dating the "most beautiful women," the National Enquirer's coverage of Bill Clinton's "womanizing," and the "mutually beneficial" relationship between the tabloid and the Trump campaign.

Q: Can you explain to the jury how the topic of women in particular came up?

A: Well, in a presidential campaign I was the person that thought that there would be a number -- a lot of women come out to try to sell their stories, because Mr. Trump was well-known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women. And it was clear that based on my past experience, that when someone is running for a public office like this, the -- it is very common for these women to call up a magazine like the National Enquirer to try to sell their stories. Or I would hear it in the marketplace through other sources that stories are being marketed.

Q: Did you have or express any ideas about how you may be able to help kind of deal with those stories by women?

A: All I said was I would notify Michael Cohen.

Q: What about Bill and Hillary Clinton, did their names up during this meeting?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you explain how?

A: As I mentioned earlier, my having the National Enquirer, which is a weekly magazine, and you focus on the cover of the magazine and who -- and who and what is the story that is the topic of the week, the Hillary running for president and Bill Clinton's womanizing was the biggest, one of the biggest sales I had for the National Enquirer and the other tabloids, that's the other things that the readers wanted to read about and that's what I would sell weekly. So I was running the Hillary Clinton stories. I was running Hillary as an enabler for Bill Clinton, with respect to all of the womanizing. And I was -- it was easy for me to say that I'm going to continue running those type of stories for the National Enquirer.

Q: And did you believe that that would help Mr. Trump's campaign?

A: I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign; it would also help me.

The jury also heard the testimony where Pecker testified that he never purchased stories to kill for Trump prior to the 2016 election.

Q: And what was the purpose of notifying Michael Cohen when you came upon stories like that?

A: Well, as I did in the past, that would be in the past eight years, when I notified Michael Cohen of a story that was a negative story, he would try to vet it himself to see if the story was true or not. He would go to the individual publication to get the story to make sure the story wasn't published and getting killed.

Q: Prior to that August 2015 meeting, had you ever purchased a story to not print it about Mr. Trump?

A: No.