Defense attorney Todd Blanche shifted his argument to the prosecution's burden to prove criminal intent, "Like a conscious objective. A purpose to defraud. There is no evidence of that ladies and gentlemen," Blanche said. "Where's the intent to defraud on the part of President Trump?"

"President Trump is not guilty. But I expect you're going to hear from Judge Merchan that there's something else that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt ... the government has to prove to you that President Trump caused these entries ... with an intent to defraud."

"There is no evidence of that," Blanche said. "Were's the intent to defraud on the part of President Trump?"

Displaying Michael Cohen's 1099 form, Blanche said, "If there was some deep-rooted intent to defraud, why do you think it was reported to the IRS as what it was? (Payments) to Michael Cohen, as Trump's personal attorney?"

"The Trump Organization disclosed these payments to the IRS," Blanche said.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche told jurors not to believe that Trump participated in a tax crime by "grossing up" Cohen's reimbursement to account for taxes.

Prosecutors have suggested Trump acted to advance another crime -- potentially the alleged tax crime -- when he falsified business records.

"I expect the government is going to tell you there might have been some tax scheme," Blanche said. "You saw no evidence of the tax treatment from anybody."

Referring to the bank statement where then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen took handwritten notes about the repayment arrangement, Cohen said the document was "full of lies."

"So what proof do you have? What actual evidence do you have that this gross-up was anything to do with taxes? … There's none," he said.

Returning to the testimony of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, defense attorney Todd Blanche asked jurors, "How is the government going to ask you to convict President Trump based on the words of Michael Cohen?"

Blanche insisted to jurors that if the payments were all for repaying Cohen, that would mean Michael Cohen was working for free in 2017 -- something he said he never would have done.

"You saw him on the stand for three days -- do you believe that for a second?," Blanche asked. "That after getting stiffed on his bonus in 2016 … do you think that Michael Cohen thought, 'I'mgoing to work for free?'"

"Is that the man that testified, or was that a lie?" Blanche asked. "That is absurd!" he nearly shouted.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche reminded the jury that Trump was president at the time Cohen's invoices were being paid, suggesting that he was too busy to actually look at the checks he was signing.

"President Trump was very busy. He was running the country," Blanche said.

Blanche noted the testimony of then-Trump aide Madeleine Westerhout who testified that Trump "sometimes" looked at what he was signing.

"You can't convict President Trump because 'sometimes,' without being specific at all ... President Trump looked at invoices ... that is a stretch," Blanch said. "And that is reasonable doubt."

"The leap that the government wants you to take that he looks at the checks, looked at the invoices ... is absurd," Blanche 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.