Defense attorney Todd Blanche tried to downplay prosecutors' theory of the case and emphasized that Cohen was Trump's attorney in 2017 and that the $35,000 paid each month over that year was Trump paying him for his services.

"Take a step back. Nobody disputes that Mr. Cohen was President Trump's lawyer in 2017," Blanche said. "So what makes more sense, that president was paying his personal attorney in 2017 the $35,000 per an agreement he made with his personal attorney?... Or the version that Mr Cohen said?"

Blanche then mimicked Cohen's testimony, as Michael Cohen:

"No, I was not paid, I was going to work for free ... I'll just work for free and make a lot of money as a consultant," Blanche said, mimicking Cohen.

"For the first time in President Trump's life, he decided to pay me back triple," Blanche continued, mimicking Cohen. "He doubled up the $130,000, he gave me $50,000 for some online poll -- by the way, I stole from him a little bit on that -- and I decided I wanted a bigger bonus. That's what really happened, ladies and gentlemen.

"There's a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one -- and that's certainly the case here," Blanche said.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche attacked Michael Cohen's testimony that he did not work under a retainer agreement for Trump, as referenced in the invoices.

"There was a retainer agreement, and that's how retainer agreements work," Blanche said, referring to Cohen's testimony. "Anything criminal about that?"

"That's not evidence of some secret agreement that Mr. Cohen had with President Trump. He broadcasted this to the world," Blanche continued. "This was not a secret. Michael Cohen was President Trump's personal attorney -- period."

Pulling up a transcript in which Cohen testified there was never expected to be a retainer agreement, Blanche said, That was a lie," stretching out each word.

"A lie is a lie, and this is a significant lie," he said.

As Blanche argued about the practice of "verbal retainer agreements," prosecutor Joshua Steinglass objected twice. Judge Merchan overruled both.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche tells jurors they will have to find two things to convict: "First, that the documents contained false entries, and second, that President Trump acted with an intent to defraud."

Blanche argued that Michael Cohen did legal work for Trump in 2017, making his invoices for legal services -- which he submitted for reimbursement of the Stormy Daniels payment -- legitimate requests for payment.

"Cohen was rendering services to President Trump in 2017 as his personal attorney," Blanche argued, highlighting parts of Cohen's testimony about his role and work for Trump.

Cohen testified that he served as Trump's personal attorney for free, but Blanche is attempting to suggest that the invoices at the center of the case were Cohen's way of getting payment in 2017.

"Cohen lied to you. Cohen lied to you on direct examination," Blanche said.

"It's a paper case," defense attorney Todd Blanche says. "This case is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago. An encounter that President Trump has unequivocally and repeatedly denied ever occurred. It's not even about a settlement in 2016," Blanche said.

"The bookings were accurate. And there was absolutely no intent to defraud," he said. "And beyond that, there was no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election."

Starting a PowerPoint showing the evidence, Blanche quickly seeks to made the case a referendum on the credibility of Michael Cohen, telling jurors he lied on the witness stand.

"You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the words of Michael Cohen," Blanche said.

"He told you a number of things on that witness stand that were lies, pure and simple," Blanche continued.

"The words that Michael Cohen said to you on that stand -- they matter. He took an oath, he swore to tell the truth, and he told you a number of things on that witness stand that were lies, pure and simple," 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.