Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, during his redirect examination, reiterated the basic terms of his catch-and-kill arrangement with Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, though he acknowledged he did not use the words "catch-and-kill" during his August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower.

"Did you specifically use the word catch-and-kill during that meeting?" prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked.

"No, I did not," Pecker said.

"What was your understanding of the part of the agreement that involved money?" Steinglass asked.

"It was my understanding that I would use the company's sources to hear any information that was coming out on Mr. Trump or the campaign related specifically to women who would be selling their stories," Pecker said, referencing a similar arrangement with then-gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"My understanding is [for] those stories that come up, I would speak to Michael Cohen and tell him that these are the stories that are going to be for sale. If we don't buy them someone else will, and that Michael Cohen would buy them or make sure they don't ever get published. That was my understanding from that meeting," Pecker said.

Pecker reiterated that he did not plan to publish the Karen McDougal story -- despite its value to the National Enquirer if it were true -- in order to help the Trump campaign.

"That would kind of be like National Enquirer gold?" Steinglass asked.

"Yes," Pecker responded.

"Zero intention of publishing that story?" Steinglass asked.

"That is correct," Pecker said.

"You killed the story because it helped the candidate Donald Trump?" Steinglass asked.

"Yes," Pecker said.

The proceedings subsequently broke for lunch, with redirect to resume afterward.

On redirect examination, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass sought to dismantle defense attorney Emil Bove's claim that former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's actions on behalf of Donald Trump were nothing more than "standard operating procedure" in the tabloid industry.

Steinglass cited Pecker's previous testimony that nondisclosure agreements were commonplace in the course of his work.

But, Steinglass asked, "On how many others did the CEO -- meaning you -- coordinate with a presidential candidate for the benefit of their campaign?"

"That was the only one," Pecker said.

Referring to Michael Cohen's input on AMI's negotiation with Karen McDougal, Steinglass asked, "Is it standard operating procedure ... to have a presidential candidate's campaign person weighing in on what terms of a contract are to be amended?"

"No," Pecker replied.

Steinglass ticked through several other matters related to Pecker's arrangement with Trump, including whether it was common practice to offer a political candidate the opportunity to "accept or reject" stories, or for the paper to "run attacks" on their opponents.

Each time, Pecker answered "No" -- that they were not common practice.

Facing questions from Trump's attorney, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker conceded that Michael Cohen was prone to exaggeration.

"Based on your experiences, Michael Cohen was prone to exaggeration?" Trump attorney Emil Bove asked.

"Yes," Pecker agreed.

"Could not trust everything he said?" Bove asked, before an objection from prosecutors interrupted that line of questioning.

Earlier, Bove continued to try to highlight inconsistencies regarding the financial component of the "catch and kill" arrangement discussed at the 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

At one point, Bove pointed to statements Pecker's attorneys previously made to federal prosecutors over information about the meeting that was included in Pecker's non-prosecution agreement.

"Your attorneys said to the DA that 'part of paragraph 3 was both wrong and inaccurate' -- do you remember that?" Bove asked.

"No," Pecker said.

As the sometimes-heated cross-examination wrapped up, Pecker remained firm in his testimony.

"I've been truthful to the best of my recollection," he said.

When the National Enquirer's parent company AMI signed a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in New York in September 2018, AMI was negotiating to sell the Enquirer and two other tabloids to Hudson News Group for $100 million, former publisher David Pecker testified under cross-examination.

Defense attorney Emil Bove suggested the pending sale put Pecker under pressure to resolve a federal campaign finance investigation over its payment to quash stories damaging to Donald Trump's presidential ambitions.

"You knew to finalize that deal, to consummate it, you had to clear out the investigations?" Bove asked.

"Yes," Pecker responded. "From a timing standpoint it would have added stress to the transaction."

On Thursday Pecker testified he had been "very worried" about the investigation. He had received a letter from the Federal Election Commission and said he called up Michael Cohen. "I said 'I'm very worried,'" he testified.

Pecker said Cohen responded, "Why are you worried? Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General and Donald Trump has him in his pocket."

The defense appears to be suggesting AMI cooperated with federal campaign finance investigations not because the company had done anything wrong related to the 2016 Trump campaign, but out of financial considerations in order to preserve the $100 million deal with Hudson News, which was finalized in April 2019.