While defense lawyers have talked plenty about an Oct. 24, 2016, phone call between Michael Cohen and Keith Schiller whose purpose they question, prosecutors have emphasized the importance of two other calls directly between Trump and Cohen on Oct. 26, 2016.

The day Cohen wired money from Essential Consultants LLC -- the bank account for the Stormy Daniels hush money payment -- Cohen spoke to Trump twice over the phone around 8 a.m. Prosecutors argued that Cohen got the go-ahead from Trump to make the payment on that call before he crossed the street from Trump Tower to wire money from First Republic Bank.

One call was three minutes long, and the other was about 90 seconds.

"This is damning, right?" prosecutor Josh Steinglass said. "Half an hour before that, he is getting the final go-ahead from Trump."

Steinglass said the "objective of the nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels was to keep her quiet.

"It's no coincidence that the sex happened in 2006 but the payoff didn't happen until October 2016, two weeks before the election. That's because the defendant's primary concern was not his family, but the election," Steinglass said.

Trump, sitting at the defense table, shook his head in response.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass told jurors that Michael Cohen falsified bank records when he opened bank accounts for the shell companies related to Stormy Daniels’ hush money payment.

In his bank paperwork for both Essential Consultants LLC and Resolution Consultants LLC, Cohen provided a description of the businesses as consulting companies, though he only created the companies as a conduit for hush money payments.

“That was one big lie,” Steinglass said, telling jurors that Cohen used that description to prevent First Republic Bank from stalling the accounts.

Steinglass suggested that Trump was aware that the shell companies required falsifying bank records.

“He is a savvy businessman -- he has opened his share of bank accounts,” Steinglass said.

Steinglass said he would go through the other crimes that Trump furthered by falsifying business records in 2017 later in his summation.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass told jurors that allegations from women in October 2016 posed a significant risk to Trump's campaign.

"This race could not have been closer," Steinglass said, arguing that Trump knew the allegations were "capable of costing him the whole election, and he knew it."

Steinglass replayed a video of an October 2016 Trump rally in Greensboro, North Carolina to demonstrate Trump's concern.

"It caused pandemonium in the Trump campaign," Steinglass said about the "Access Hollywood" tape.

Trump, at the defense table, looked at the evidence before shifting back in his chair. After shaking his head in disagreement, he whispered back and forth with his attorney Emil Bove.

Steinglass argued that Trump was particularly concerned about the Daniels allegations because they could undermine his response to the "Access Hollywood" tape.

"Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that the defendant was not only words," Steinglass said. "She would have totally undermined his strategy for spinning the 'Access Hollywood' tape."

Hitting back at the defense's suggestion that the "Access Hollywood" tape "wasn't a big deal to the defendant -- it was just another blip," Steinglass said, "You really can't understand this case without appreciating the climate in the wake of the 'Access Hollywood' tape ... it caused pandemonium in the Trump campaign."

More than an a hour and a half into his summation, prosecutor Josh Steinglass finally turned his attention to the Stormy Daniels hush money payment.

Steinglass resumed his summation by discussing the impact of the "Access Hollywood" tape, which prosecutors argued was the impetus for the Daniels hush money payment.

"It all began with this email from this Washington Post reporter named David Fahrenthold," Steinglass said, displaying the exhibit. Fahrenthold had reached out to then-Trump aide Hope Hicks with a transcript of the "Access Hollywood" remarks to ask for the campaign's comment.

Steinglass recapped some of Hicks' testimony, saying her "initial instinct was to deny the video's legitimacy." But once the campaign saw the video, "that strategy quickly shifted from 'deny, deny, deny' to 'spin.'"

Steinglass then played a video of Trump's reaction to the "Access Hollywood" tape in which he expressed his regret.

On Oct. 8, Steinglass says, there was a "flurry of activity" as Trump's campaign sought to spin the Access Hollywood tape. Michael Cohen asked then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker about a RadarOnline article "about Trump being a playboy" and asked him to remove it, which he did.

"This is not catch-and-kill exactly, but they are purging the internet at the direction of the campaign," Steinglass said.

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.