Assistant district attorney Josh Steinglass began his closing argument by quoting the People's opening.

"This case, at its core, is about a conspiracy and a coverup, a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 election and a coverup to hide that conspiracy," Steinglass said.

"We asked you to remember to tune out the noise and to ignore the sideshows. And if you've done that ... you will see the People have presented powerful evidence of the defendants guilt," he said.

Steinglass pushed back on the defense's suggestion that prosecutors manipulated evidence.

"There is nothing sinister here -- no manipulation," Steinglass said.

Steinglass argued that it was defense lawyers manipulated who the evidence in a phone summary chart showing calls between Michael Cohen and his onetime legal adviser Bob Costello, saying that defense lawyers were provided Cohen's full phone extraction if they believed evidence was manipulated.

Following the lunch break, the parties returned to the courtroom ahead of their closing argument.

Judge Merchan began the afternoon session by asking prosecutors about the curative instruction following defense attorney Todd Blanche's mention of prison at the end of his closing argument.

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger told Merchan that Blanche's mention of prison time was "highly improper" and a direct violation of a pretrial order about arguments related to potential punishments.

"Mr. Blanche was certainly on notice that this was an improper argument," Hoffinger said.

Blanche did not opposed to the curative instruction about his earlier arguments. Merchan will deliver it to the jury as drafted by prosecutors.

Before Judge Merchan recessed court for the lunch break, prosecutors took issue with defense attorney Todd Blanche saying "You cannot send someone to prison based upon the words of Michael Cohen."

Prosecutors called Blanche's reference to prison "ridiculous" and an effort to gain sympathy for their client.

"I think that saying that was outrageous, Mr. Blanche," Merchan told Blanche. "It is simply not allowed, period."

The judge said he would give the jury curative instructions.

"Its hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way," Merchan said.

The parties then left the courtroom for the break. Blanche left the courtroom smiling as another member of the legal team gave him a big pat on the back.

Finishing up his 10 reasons why he says Trump should be acquitted, defense attorney Todd Blanche listed:

- "There is no evidence of any illegal effort to influence the 2016 election," Blanche said.

- "AMI would have run Mr. Sajudin's story no matter what," Blanche said. "That's not catch and kill."

- "McDougal did not want her story published," Blanche said. "That's not catch and kill."

- Daniel's story was "already public," Blanche said.

- Blanche argued that key evidence was "manipulated" during the trial. He alleged that the district attorney's office made mistakes when analyzing Cohen's phone. "How can you trust that the September 6 recording is actually reliable? The answer is you can't," Blanche said.

- "Michael Cohen. He is the human embodiment of reasonable doubt," Blanche said.

In a play on words, Blanche asked the jurors if the knew of the term GOAT, for the Greatest Of All Time. Some of them nodded.

He then said Cohen was the GLOAT, the "greatest liar of all time."

"You cannot send someone to prison based upon the words of Michael Cohen," Blanche said, concluding his closing statement.

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.