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 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.