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.

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.