Addressing the question regarding whether Trump was reimbursing Michael Cohen or paying Cohen for legal work, prosecutor Josh Steinglass said of Trump, "It's just inconceivable that he would be so involved in buying these women's silence and then stick his head in the sand when it comes to Cohen's reimbursement."

Steinglass showed the jury a 2018 tweet in which Trump called the payments a reimbursement.

"Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA," the tweet said.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass argued that Michael Cohen kept Trump in the loop because he sought Trump's credit.

"If Cohen accomplished something for Mr. Trump, he wanted Mr. Trump to know immediately," Steinglass said.

Steinglass highlighted testimony from former Trump aide Hope Hicks to highlight Cohen's credit-seeking nature.

"I didn't know Michael to be an especially charitable person, um, or selfless person. He's the kind of person who seeks credit," Hicks testified.

"Why would the defendant be kept in the dark about the Daniels' NDA?" Steinglass asked the jury, referring to the nondisclosure agreement. "It defies common sense."

More than four hours into his summation, Prosecutor Josh Steinglass returned to the timelines of the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels payoffs.

Steinglass argued that Cohen attempted to delay the Stormy Daniels payment until after the 2016 election at the direction of Trump.

"You think Cohen would have the audacity to take that chance without the defendant saying so?" Steinglass said. "Cohen did that -- that strategy of delay -- because that's what the defendant told him to."

"There is just no way -- no way -- that Cohen wouldn't have told Mr. Trump about Daniels during that phone call. Why wouldn't he have?" Steingless said.

"Is this timing just all a coincidence, every single one of these things? Mr. Trump was being kept abreast of every development."

"Michael Cohen is not some rogue actor here," Steinglass said. "He is acting at the direction of the defendant."

After the parties returned to the courtroom following the final break, Judge Merchan told prosecutor Josh Steinglass he needs to wrap up his summation by 8 p.m.

"You've been going for four hours now, and the jury has been clear they need to go by 8 o'clock," the judge said.

"Thanks for sticking with me," Steinglass told the jury before diving back into his closing argument.

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.