Prosecutor Josh Steinglass emphasized a Feb. 8, 2017, White House meeting between Michael Cohen and Trump, where Cohen said Trump confirmed the plan to repay him for the Daniels hush money payment.

While defense lawyers have tried to distance Trump from the first few checks to Cohen -- which were signed by representatives of Trump's trust rather than Trump himself -- Steinglass argued that Trump reassured Cohen about the first two payments during their meeting.

"There is evidence that Trump knew, and it's right here," Steinglass said.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass returned to the defense's argument that Trump "grossing up" the Cohen reimbursement -- effectively doubling the payment to account for the taxes Cohen would have to pay -- suggests the payment is suspicious for the famously frugal Trump.

"But it was worth it -- it was worth it to hide the truth about what this money was really for -- a reimbursement for the Daniels payoff," Steinglass said.

Steinglass was basically giggling to the jury as he tried to poke holes in the defense theory about the payments were legitimate expenses for legal work.

"These documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh at how Mr. Blanche explained it to you," Steinglass said.

Calling the documents "smoking guns," Steinglass said "they completely blow out of the water the defense claim."

"I'm almost speechless that they're still trying to make this argument that the it was for services rendered," Steinglass said of the payment.

The parties returned from break, during which Trump commented on the prosecutions' arguments on his social media platform, writing, "BORING!" and "FILIBUSTER!"

Back in court, prosecutor Josh Steinglass walked the jury through the evidence and testimony about the meeting when Trump approved Michael Cohen's repayment plan in 2017 -- the arrangement that prompted the falsification of business records.

Steinglass began with the the bank statement that had been entered into evidence.

"Right on the bank statement, Weisselberg and Cohen calculated all the money owed to Cohen," Steinglass said, referring to then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Cohen testified about meeting with Trump and Weisselberg in the days ahead of Trump's inauguration when the payment plan was approved.

"Weisselberg discussed the reimbursement plan with Trump and Cohen," Steinglass said. "Mr. Trump approved the payment plan."

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass continued to lean on the testimony of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, arguing it offered unequivocal evidence that Trump was in on the catch-and-kill plan involving Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Pecker testified that Trump was furious at Pecker after the Wall Street Journal published a story in November 2016 about AMI's payment to McDougal.

"This is the story that he is simultaneously telling the press he knows nothing about," Steinglass said. "Pecker established unequivocally that Trump was in on the McDougal deal."

Trump was "angry because story came out that threatened his standing with female voters," Steinglass said.

"Of course we will never know if this effort to hoodwink the American voter made the difference in the 2016 election, but that's not something we have to prove," Steinglass said. What matters, Steinglass said, is that the scheme was "cloaked in false business records to hide the conspiracy."

Judge Merchan said the jury would take its next break, then the closing would continue.

"I was watching the jurors," said the judge. "They looked pretty alert to me -- I don't think we're losing anyone."

The jury specifically requested to hear the portion of the jury instruction that compared the drawing of inferences to concluding that a rain storm had passed outside.

They read as follows:

In evaluating the evidence, you may consider any fact that is proven and any inference which may be drawn from such fact. To draw an inference means to infer, find, conclude that a fact exists or does not exist based upon proof of some other fact or facts.

For example, suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flows naturally, reasonably, and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative. Therefore, in deciding whether to draw an inference, you must look at and consider all the facts in the light of reason, common sense, and experience.