Defense attorney Todd Blanche tried to downplay prosecutors' theory of the case and emphasized that Cohen was Trump's attorney in 2017 and that the $35,000 paid each month over that year was Trump paying him for his services.

"Take a step back. Nobody disputes that Mr. Cohen was President Trump's lawyer in 2017," Blanche said. "So what makes more sense, that president was paying his personal attorney in 2017 the $35,000 per an agreement he made with his personal attorney?... Or the version that Mr Cohen said?"

Blanche then mimicked Cohen's testimony, as Michael Cohen:

"No, I was not paid, I was going to work for free ... I'll just work for free and make a lot of money as a consultant," Blanche said, mimicking Cohen.

"For the first time in President Trump's life, he decided to pay me back triple," Blanche continued, mimicking Cohen. "He doubled up the $130,000, he gave me $50,000 for some online poll -- by the way, I stole from him a little bit on that -- and I decided I wanted a bigger bonus. That's what really happened, ladies and gentlemen.

"There's a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one -- and that's certainly the case here," Blanche said.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche attacked Michael Cohen's testimony that he did not work under a retainer agreement for Trump, as referenced in the invoices.

"There was a retainer agreement, and that's how retainer agreements work," Blanche said, referring to Cohen's testimony. "Anything criminal about that?"

"That's not evidence of some secret agreement that Mr. Cohen had with President Trump. He broadcasted this to the world," Blanche continued. "This was not a secret. Michael Cohen was President Trump's personal attorney -- period."

Pulling up a transcript in which Cohen testified there was never expected to be a retainer agreement, Blanche said, That was a lie," stretching out each word.

"A lie is a lie, and this is a significant lie," he said.

As Blanche argued about the practice of "verbal retainer agreements," prosecutor Joshua Steinglass objected twice. Judge Merchan overruled both.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche tells jurors they will have to find two things to convict: "First, that the documents contained false entries, and second, that President Trump acted with an intent to defraud."

Blanche argued that Michael Cohen did legal work for Trump in 2017, making his invoices for legal services -- which he submitted for reimbursement of the Stormy Daniels payment -- legitimate requests for payment.

"Cohen was rendering services to President Trump in 2017 as his personal attorney," Blanche argued, highlighting parts of Cohen's testimony about his role and work for Trump.

Cohen testified that he served as Trump's personal attorney for free, but Blanche is attempting to suggest that the invoices at the center of the case were Cohen's way of getting payment in 2017.

"Cohen lied to you. Cohen lied to you on direct examination," Blanche said.

"It's a paper case," defense attorney Todd Blanche says. "This case is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago. An encounter that President Trump has unequivocally and repeatedly denied ever occurred. It's not even about a settlement in 2016," Blanche said.

"The bookings were accurate. And there was absolutely no intent to defraud," he said. "And beyond that, there was no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election."

Starting a PowerPoint showing the evidence, Blanche quickly seeks to made the case a referendum on the credibility of Michael Cohen, telling jurors he lied on the witness stand.

"You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the words of Michael Cohen," Blanche said.

"He told you a number of things on that witness stand that were lies, pure and simple," Blanche continued.

"The words that Michael Cohen said to you on that stand -- they matter. He took an oath, he swore to tell the truth, and he told you a number of things on that witness stand that were lies, pure and simple," Blanche said.

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.