Testimony ends for the day in Trump hush money trial

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.

David Pecker testified that he had concerns about the legality of the catch and kill deals. In 2016, Pecker testified he consulted an election law attorney when AMI was structuring the catch and kill contract with Karen McDougal and said that AMI’s in-house attorney was aware of the deal.

Still, AMI moved forward and signed a deal with McDougal, including rights to any stories involving married men, with no intention of publishing health and fitness articles they promised her.

Two years later, AMI signed a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors investigating Michael Cohen. Under the deal, AMI admitted it violated federal campaign finance laws by making a $150,000 donation to Trump’s campaign while coordinating with the campaign. AMI never disclosed the contribution to the Federal Election Commission. As part of the deal, Pecker cooperated with federal prosecutors.

During questioning Thursday, Pecker said he knew at the time the 2016 deal was illegal and he wouldn’t have entered into it if it wasn’t for Trump’s benefit.

Records show McDougal was paid via her attorney on August 10, 2016 — a few days after the contract was signed August 5.

Steinglass is now introducing the AMI payment voucher. The prosecutor is walking Pecker through the mechanics of how this payment was made from start to finish.

Steinglass is having Pecker confirm with each document the dates of the payment and the amount of the payment listed.

Pecker explains filing the payment to McDougal under the president's budget was a clerical decision because the editors' budget was limited for smaller transactions.

AMI, the National Enquirer's parent company, paid for McDougal's life rights via wire transfer, Pecker says. The paperwork for that transaction is now being shown in court.

Pecker testifies that he, National Enquirer Dylan Howard and AMI's general counsel were aware of the contract with McDougal.

Steinglass asks Pecker who on Trump's side knew about the contract. "Michael Cohen," Pecker says.

After an objection for a leading question that was sustained, Steinglass asks a second question about who else knew on Trump's side.

"Yes, I believe Donald Trump knew," Pecker says.