Trump trial: 1st week of testimony ends with testimony from Cohen's former banker

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified on cross-examination that the publication's limited involvement in Stormy Daniels' hush money payment was unrelated to the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting where Pecker vowed to serve as the "eyes and ears" of Trump's presidential campaign.

Pecker's testimony on cross-examination about the Daniels story appeared consistent with his testimony yesterday about his strong desire not to be involved in the Stormy Daniels payment.

Pecker said yesterday that he did not want to be involved in the story due to concerns about reputational harm to the National Enquirer and a lack of reimbursement for the other payments he had made to suppress previous Trump stories.

"I said, we already paid $30,000 to the doorman, we paid $150,000 to Karen McDougal, and I am not a bank. I am not paying out any further disbursements among us," Pecker testified yesterday. Pecker said he instructed National Enquirer Chief Content Officer Dylan Howard to flag the Stormy Daniels story to Michael Cohen, who made the payment to Daniels himself.

Asked about Daniels' payment on cross-examination, Pecker said that the National Enquirer's limited involvement was unrelated to their vow to Trump.

"You did not consider the Stormy Daniels story to be part of any agreement you had in August 2015?" defense attorney Emil Bove asked.

"That is correct," Pecker said.

"You wanted nothing to do with it?" Bove said.

"That's correct," Pecker said.

Pecker added that he did not "authorize" Howard to continue communicating with Stormy Daniels' lawyer Keith Davidson about the payment.

When Howard raised concerns to Pecker that Davidson had not yet been paid by Michael Cohen, Pecker said he was angry that Howard continued to communicate with Davidson about the story. In addition to the nature of the story -- which Pecker said could endanger the National Enquirer's relationship with its distributors -- Pecker said Cohen's delay in paying Daniels' lawyer could result in reputational harm to the National Enquirer.

"Frankly, you were not happy to be hearing that?" Bove asked about Cohen's delayed payment.

"Yes," Pecker said.

"The main concern was Howard's reputation?" Bove asked.

"Yes," Pecker said.

David Pecker might be the only witness on the stand, but defense attorneys appear to be using the former National Enquirer publisher's testimony to go after Michael Cohen.

Under questioning from defense attorney Emil Bove, Pecker said that Cohen at one point asked for his help getting a job with a New-Jersey based company. It wasn't clear when exactly the request was made.

The company promptly rejected the offer, Pecker testified.

"They had no interest in Michael Cohen," Pecker said bluntly.

Pecker also testified that Cohen asked for help sending paparazzi to one of his meetings, then publishing the photos in the National Enquirer.

"That would put pressure on President Trump to treat Cohen differently?" Bove asked about why Cohen wanted the paparazzi.

"Yes," Pecker said.

Bove's use of the term "President Trump" whenever he references his client led to a minor complaint from prosecutors this morning.

"He was not President Trump in June of 2016," prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said.

Defense attorney Emil Bove sought to distance former President Trump from the National Enquirer's purchase of negative stories about him and instead suggested David Pecker and Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen may have been freelancing.

Bove asked Pecker about a meeting at Trump Tower in August 2015 where Pecker previously testified he agreed to be the "eyes and ears" of the Trump campaign.

"At that meeting, the concept of catch and kill was not discussed, correct?" Bove asked.

"That's correct," Pecker answered.

The defense also sought to reframe the Enquirer's $30,000 purchase of Trump World Tower doorman Dino Sajudin's false claim that Trump fathered a love child.

Bove suggested Enquirer parent AMI purchased the story not to help the Trump campaign, but because it was an irresistible tabloid scoop.

"Sajudin threatened to go somewhere else?" Bove asked. "Yes," Pecker responded.

"That is why you paid him $30,000?" Bove asked. "It would be too great a loss to AMI to lose the story, if true?"

"Yes," Pecker answered.

"You could not walk away from that possibility?" asked Bove.

"Yes," replied Pecker.

Trump attorney Emil Bove, continuing his cross-examination of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, returned to a theme he emphasized yesterday: that the National Enquirer's supportive arrangement with Trump was not unique, but rather "standard operating procedure."

Bove is seeking to establish that negative stories about Donald Trump's political opponents in the National Enquirer largely involved "information that was already in the public domain" -- recycled narratives and reporting found in other outlets.

"There wasn't much new content in those stories, was there?" Bove asked Pecker.

"Yes," Pecker said.

"It was a business decision that it was good for the National Enquirer to run those stories," Bove said, adding that, as a business model, it was "quick, efficient, and cost-effective" -- to which Pecker agreed.

Bove cited stories about Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson as examples.