Prosecutor Josh Steinglass laid out the DA's case for why Trump should be found guilty of falsifying records, even if he didn't pen them himself and just directed it to be done.

"Tarasoff may be doing the typing, but the defendant is causing the false business records," Steinglass said, referring to Trump Organization accountant Deborah Tarasoff.

Steinglass said Trump "doesn't want to leave a paper trail" and instead would "have his lackeys do it."

"If Trump didn't know about the scheme, why was he just signing the checks 'for services rendered' for $35,000 each month?" Steinglass asked.

"Does he call Cohen and say, 'Why'd I pay you $35000 for nothing?' No. He just signs it. Every month. He never once picks up the phone, he never once makes further inquiry," said Steinglass.

"Despite his frugality and attention to detail, the defendant didn't ask any questions. Because he already knew the answers."

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass' tone reached a crescendo as he ticked through a "mountain of evidence" he said that jurors would have to ignore to acquit Donald Trump.

"You'd have to disregard the fact" that Cohen wasn't paid in 2018, Steinglass said, and that Donald Trump repeatedly acknowledges in court papers, political filings and his own Twitter account that he knew the payments to Cohen were reimbursements.

"That means by definition he knew that the payment records ... were false," Steinglass said.

Jurors would also have to accept that "the amount he was paid just happens to magically" match what he paid for Stormy Daniels' story.

"Does anyone believe that?" Steinglass asked.

Trump, at the defense table, glanced at the monitor displaying the invoices that Steinglass was referencing. He shrugged his shoulders and shook his head before returning to a slouched position.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass emphasizing why the jury should not believe the 2017 payments to Michael Cohen were legal fees.

"The testimony was that he did less than 10 hours of legal work [in 2017] ... Cohen spent more time being cross-examined for this trial than he did doing legal work for Trump in 2017," Steinglass said.

"The fact is, Cohen did pretty well here. He got a cool title -- Personal Attorney to the President -- that he used to his advantage to get consulting gigs.

"He was making more money than any government job would ever pay -- and boy, do I know that," Steinglass joked, receiving a few chuckles from the jury.

"The defense must maintain that these were legal fees, because to say anything else is to admit that the business records are false -- and they can't do that," Steinglass said.

As ABC News reported previously, the U.S. Secret Service spent considerable time working with New York City court and jail officials to determine what would happen if the judge, as threatened during trial, ordered former President Trump to be incarcerated for contempt -- a situation that did not come to pass.

According to an official briefed on the matter, U.S. Secret Service planners have not started the process of determining arrangements for Trump to be imprisoned at a New York state penitentiary in the event he is convicted. Because Trump is charged with nonviolent crimes, has no criminal record, and was allowed to remain free before trial, it is believed that there is no way that a conviction would lead to immediate incarceration.

If Trump is convicted, the Secret Service will spend the time prior to sentencing -- which could be months -- working with New York state prison officials to determine how imprisonment would work. An official told ABC News that potential questions could include, would USSS agents be armed inside prisons where firearms are prohibited? What prison would Trump be assigned to? Where would protection agents be stationed in relation to Trump? Those details, among many others, would have to be hammered out, the official said.

The Secret Service specifically avoided planning on a possible prison sentence during the trial so Trump and his loyalists could not accuse them of taking sides against the former president, the official said.

-Josh Margolin

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.