Testimony ends for the day in Trump hush money trial

Pecker is saying he asked a consultant to work with Cohen on the McDougal reimbursement.

Pecker informed Cohen of this and made the introduction. Pecker is saying he put the consultant in touch with Cohen, and that he said he created a company called Resolution Consultants to bill it.

At this point, Judge Juan Merchan gave the jury an instruction that the document was accepted into evidence for the fact that it was created, but that jurors should not consider the truth of what it says.

Steinglass asks if its fair that Pecker used the consultant as a middleman and it was objected to by the defense. The judge sustained.

"I used Daniel Rodstein (sp) because I did not want to have a payment received in the AMI finance department from the Trump Organization or Michael Cohen," Pecker said, referring to the consultant.

Steinglass asked, "Why not?"

Steinglass is having Pecker read the invoice item, which says the money was billed for a "flat fee" for advisory services.

Pecker says that's not what the $125,000 invoice was for — it was for the lifetime rights to Karen McDougal's story.

The prosecutor is showing an invoice that was prepared for the reimbursement. Pecker is explaining why the invoice is prepared by Investor Advisory Services, a company owned by a former AMI employee who became a consultant.

Pecker is explaining he used this outside service for large reimbursements, because he had "difficult experiences" within the company where his finance department would tell tabloid editors about expenses, like flying a celebrity in a private jet.

Pecker says he told the consultant, "I don’t want to have a check from the Trump Organization going through American Media."

As lawyers approach the bench for a sidebar, Trump is sitting at the defense table with his lawyer Susan Necheles. He's leaning back in his chair with his eyes closed.

Trump just stretched a bit with his arms forward and let out a short sigh. He is now talking to Necheles.

Pecker is explaining that he negotiated with Cohen the amount he would sell the lifetime rights for the McDougal story.

Pecker says that he valued the editorial work that McDougal would do for AMI at $25,000, so he would sell the lifetime rights for $125,000.

Pecker says Cohen was anxious to get the lifetime rights signed over to him on Trump's behalf.

Pecker told Cohen he would have the contract done by the end of September.

Pecker says that he saw this as a way to recoup at least some of the money he'd laid out for Trump.

"Yes, as I said, it was coming toward the end of the quarter, so I wanted to see if I could get funds refunded before September 30," Pecker says.

Pecker testifies that Michael Cohen was insistent about getting all of the content AMI had on Trump.

Pecker says he told Cohen it was boxes of old news articles and old files. But Pecker says Cohen insisted Trump wanted the boxes.

Cohen called Pecker constantly in September 2016 to get the boxes to his office, Pecker says.

As to why Cohen wanted the documents, Pecker says: "The boss said if I got hit by a bus or if the company got sold, he didn't want someone else to potentially publish those stories."

Pecker says he discussed the reimbursement for the McDougal deal with Cohen after AMI laid out the money.

Pecker says he asked Cohen "on a number of occasions" how the company would be reimbursed.

The former tabloid executive says he wanted the repayment before September 30, when the company's quarter ended. He wanted the "proper true ups" on the various accounts at AMI, Pecker adds.

Pecker says he was explaining to Cohen why he kept discussing the issue of repayment.

"I wanted to explain to him why it was so important to be reimbursed," Pecker told the court.

Earlier in his testimony, Pecker said Cohen referred to Trump as "the boss."

Steinglass is asking Pecker why he didn't want other outlets to publish McDougal's story.

"We didn’t want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign," Pecker says.

Pecker clarifies that when he says "we," he's referring to is himself and Michael Cohen.

Pecker testifies that he wouldn't have entered into the agreement if it weren't for Trump's benefit.

Trump's attorney objected to a series of questions by Steinglass about Pecker's knowledge of campaign finance laws at the time of the transaction. The objection is overruled.

Steinglass is asking whether Pecker was aware that corporations making campaign expenditures in coordination with a campaign without disclosing them was unlawful.

Yes, Pecker says.

Pecker also confirms the transaction was not reported under campaign finance obligations.

Trump passed a note from one of his attorneys to the other at that moment.

Steinglass is asking whether Pecker had any intention of printing McDougal's story about Donald Trump.

"No, we did not," Pecker says.

Steinglass followed up, asking whether Pecker's intention was so that her story did not influence the 2016 election.

"Yes, it was," Pecker says.