The first hour of prosecutor Josh Steinglass' summation sounded impromptu, as if he was extemporaneously delivering a direct response to the defense's closing.

As his closing entered its second hour, Steinglass unveiled a slideshow and timeline to make his argument -- slowing down the pace of his delivery and bringing the jury back to the first witness in the case, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.

Steinglass walked the jury through the $30,000 payment American Media Inc. made to doorman Dino Sajudin for the rights to his false story about Trump having a child out of wedlock. He outlined timeline of the catch and kill, emphasizing the steps taken to ensure Sajudin did not become a problem for the campaign.

According to Steinglass, Cohen added a $1 million breach of contract penalty "just to put the fear of God into Sajudin."

"Mr. Sajudin had been completely neutralized as a threat to the campaign," Steinglass said about the payment.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass argued that Trump's catch-and-kill arrangement with the National Enquirer was a "subversion of democracy."

Steinglass pushed back against defense attorney Todd Blanche's argument in his closing that Trump's agreement with Enquirer parent AMI was democracy at work. During his opening statement, Blanche said, "I have a spoiler alert. There is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy."

"In reality, this agreement at Trump Tower was the exact opposite. It was the subversion of democracy," Steinglass said, arguing that it was an attempt "to pull the wool over [voter's] eyes in a coordinated fashion" and that it was meant to "manipulate and defraud the voters."

Referenceing the Trump Tower meeting in 2015, Steinglass said, "This scheme cooked up by these men at this time, could very well be what got President Trump elected."

"It turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions anyone ever made to Trump," he argued.

"It's difficult to conceive a case with more corroboration than this one," prosecutor Josh Steinglass told jurors. "You don't have to think too much about this one."

Steinglass argued that jurors have seen a "mountain of evidence."

"This case is not about Michael Cohen. This case is about Donald Trump and whether he should be held accountable for making false entries in his own business records, whether he and his staff did that to cover up for his own election violations," Steinglass said, describing Cohen as a tour guide through the evidence.

"The question is not whether you like Cohen or whether you want to go into business with Cohen. It's whether he has useful, reliable information," Steinglass said. "He was in the best position to know."

Steinglass called the defense's focus on Cohen "deflection -- like the defendant's own tweets"

"The defense goes on and on about Michael Cohen is immoral or a liar or a thief," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said of the state's star witness.

"We didn't choose Michael Cohen to be a witness. We didn't pick him up at witness store. The defendant chose him as a fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat," he said, drawing a few laughs from the jury.

Steinglass then displayed a passage from one of Trump's books to exemplify why he hired someone like Michael Cohen in the first place.

"As a matter of fact, I value loyalty above everything else -- more than brains, more than drive, and more than energy," the passage read.

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.