Day 8 of Trump New York hush money trial

The prosecution is having Pecker re-confirm that the purpose of the National Enquirer's contract with former Playboy model Karen McDougal was to suppress her potentially damaging story about Donald Trump and help influence the 2016 election.

Additional items about writing articles and appearing on covers were extraneous, Pecker confirmed, in response to prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, who is bringing things back to his team's central argument about the agreement.

Pecker testifies he never told his company's general counsel that the true purpose of the deal was to influence the election. He also never told the attorney that he planned to transfer the rights to Michael Cohen, who pledged to reimburse him.

Steinglass is starting his redirect by revisiting Bove's questions to Pecker. Here are some of the things that are coming up right now:

More on this: Steinglass is seeking to infer to the jury that the election law attorney reviewed the McDougal agreement without the underlying context of Pecker's secret agreement to benefit Trump's campaign.

The Trump attorney's cross-examination of Pecker has now ended.

"I’ve been truthful to the best of my recollection," Pecker says to Bove.

In closing cross-examination, Bove confirms that ultimately the district attorney's office will determine whether Pecker's held up his end of the immunity agreement.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now back up for a redirect.

Bove is pressing Pecker about some boxes of information held at the National Enquirer that then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen tried to get his hands on.

Pecker says he had someone review the boxes.

Bove presses him if he is suggesting there is a trove of information about Trump.

Pecker says, "There was nothing in those boxes. They were worthless."

Some context: Pecker testified Thursday that he met with Cohen at Trump Tower after the election, and that Cohen was still asking about some boxes of information about Trump. Pecker said he was not going to let Cohen go through the boxes.

Pecker assured Cohen there was nothing damaging to be worried about in the boxes, he testified.

The defense is trying to poke holes in David Pecker's truthfulness and, combined with a non-prosecution agreement Pecker reached with federal investigators in 2018, undermine his motivations, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said.

When law enforcement approached Pecker, he was about to sell his company, and thus he "had to tell them whatever they wanted to hear you had to do whatever they wanted," Honig said.

And Pecker then got to walk away without getting criminally prosecuted.

Bove moved his questioning onto American Media Inc's conciliation agreement with the Federal Election Commission in May 2021.

Pecker was not CEO at that point, but read the agreement at the time because he still had equity in the company.

Pecker said he was still consulting for AMI, and Bove asked what work he did. Pecker said he answered questions from the AMI president on "celebrity magazines and just the magazine industry."

Pecker previously testified that the conciliation agreement acknowledged that AMI committed a campaign violation.

Bove asked Pecker on cross-examination to confirm that is not true.

Bove read from the agreement, "With no admission as to merit of the commission's legal conclusions."

"That’s different from an admission, right?" Bove asked. Pecker agreed.

Bove noted that Pecker was also accused of a campaign finance violation. "You certainly did not admit to a campaign finance violation?" Bove asked. "No," Pecker said.

Bove noted that Pecker was not part of the AMI conciliation agreement with the FEC, as Pecker no longer worked at the company. Bove also noted that Pecker provided a signed declaration that stated he sought legal advice related to the Karen McDougal agreement.

"Your lawyers relied on that sworn declaration to argue to the FEC there wasn’t a violation?" Bove asked. "Yes," Pecker said.

Bove is now turning to a letter from the Federal Election Commission and Michael Cohen's response that they didn't need to worry about it because Trump had former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in his pocket.

"Based on your experience Michael Cohen was prone to exaggeration?" Pecker agreed.

Bove continued: "Could not trust anything he said?" Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass objected to the question and Judge Juan Merchan sustained it.

Bove is focusing on a portion of the statement of facts in a non-prosecution agreement Pecker reached with federal investigators in 2018.

It relates to an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower.

Bove is asking Pecker about his statements about that meeting during his October 2019 interview with the district attorney's office.

He asks Pecker whether he recalls that his lawyer said at the 2019 meeting that a section of the statement of facts, paragraph three, was "wrong and inaccurate." Pecker says he does not recall this.

Trump is leaning forward and staring at the screen as Pecker reviews the record from the October 2019 meeting.

"I think that may be inaccurate. I think that came up with the feds. I have never heard Pecker say that," is captured in notes from the meeting, which Bove read aloud.

Pecker says there was a dispute over a single word: "Selling and purchasing is the same thing. Someone has to buy them."

Key context: The defense is working to poke holes in Pecker's claims and raise doubt about his recollection of events regarding the National Enquirer's relationship with Trump, as he is serving as a key witness for the prosecution.

Bove has spent much of the cross-examination trying to dismantle Pecker's credibility, highlighting small inconsistencies in Pecker's statements to prosecutors over the years in comparison to his trial testimony.

The jury has been paying attention as Bove continues to cross-examine Pecker.

Their eyes have followed the back-and-forth between of them.

Remember: The jury is comprised of 12 jurors and six alternate jurors. Read about them here.