The jury heard a portion of David Pecker's testimony, under cross-examination by defense attorneys, when he clarified that the idea of specifically catching and killing stories was not discussed at the 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

Q: At that meeting, the concept of "catch and kill" was not discussed; correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And there was no discussion of a financial dimension to any agreement at that meeting; correct?

A: Yes. That's correct.

Pecker also testified that he did not consider that the Stormy Daniels catch and kill stemmed from the Trump Tower agreement in August 2015.

Q: And you did not consider the Stormy Daniels story to be a part of any Agreement that you had in August 2015; correct?

A: That's correct.

The jury heard an exchange between David Pecker and defense attorney Emil Bove where Bove highlighted that Pecker originally thought the Trump Tower meeting took place in the first week of August 2015. Pecker testified that the meeting actually happened in the middle of August.

Bove used the moment as an opportunity to highlight "gaps" in Pecker's memory and emphasize how long ago the meeting took place.

Q: And you changed your testimony here; right?

A: Yes, when I discovered that it was in the middle -- that it was the middle of August.

Q: And when you say that you "discovered," what you mean is that somebody told you that, notwithstanding what you testified about in the Grand Jury, President Trump was actually not in New York City during the first week of August; correct?

A: I -- I don't recall anyone telling me about that, that Mr. Trump was away in the first week of August.

Q: And then you changed your testimony, this week, on that issue; right?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: Why did you change your testimony?
A: I thought that -- I didn't know the exact date. I thought -- I know it was in the first half of August, so I thought it was the middle of August, that's what I recollected. That's why I corrected my -- the dates, yes.

A: I didn't believe that the exact date was --

Q: I understand. And I don't mean to put you on the spot. What I'm getting at, though, is that these things happened a long time ago; right?

A: Yes.

Q: And even when you're doing your best, and I'm sure you are right now, it's hard to remember exactly what happened when; right?

A: Yes.

Q: And when you are remembering about conversations that you had, it's hard to remember what people said almost ten years ago; correct?

A: You -- Ahhhh, yes.

Q: And so there are some instances where your mind sort of fills in gaps; right?

A: To the best of my knowledge.

Q: And you do your best to explain what happened in a way that makes sense; correct?

A: To what I remember.

Q: Yeah, to what you remember. And you fill in some details to keep things in sequence; right, and to make them sound logical?

A: I try to make them -- to what I remember. And to be truthful.

Q: I understand. But there are some gaps; correct?

A: Yes.

During the ongoing role-play of David Pecker's testimony, the jury has been paying close attention. Some are taking notes, others are simply watching, but all appear keyed in.

Trump at one point was shaking his head in his seat; he passed a Post-it note to his attorney Todd Blanche, who passed it back.

The Trump wrote another note and threw it at Blanche.

The note landed in Blanche's lap, where he picked it up and read it.

The jury heard a readback of David Pecker's testimony about Donald Trump dating the "most beautiful women," the National Enquirer's coverage of Bill Clinton's "womanizing," and the "mutually beneficial" relationship between the tabloid and the Trump campaign.

Q: Can you explain to the jury how the topic of women in particular came up?

A: Well, in a presidential campaign I was the person that thought that there would be a number -- a lot of women come out to try to sell their stories, because Mr. Trump was well-known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women. And it was clear that based on my past experience, that when someone is running for a public office like this, the -- it is very common for these women to call up a magazine like the National Enquirer to try to sell their stories. Or I would hear it in the marketplace through other sources that stories are being marketed.

Q: Did you have or express any ideas about how you may be able to help kind of deal with those stories by women?

A: All I said was I would notify Michael Cohen.

Q: What about Bill and Hillary Clinton, did their names up during this meeting?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you explain how?

A: As I mentioned earlier, my having the National Enquirer, which is a weekly magazine, and you focus on the cover of the magazine and who -- and who and what is the story that is the topic of the week, the Hillary running for president and Bill Clinton's womanizing was the biggest, one of the biggest sales I had for the National Enquirer and the other tabloids, that's the other things that the readers wanted to read about and that's what I would sell weekly. So I was running the Hillary Clinton stories. I was running Hillary as an enabler for Bill Clinton, with respect to all of the womanizing. And I was -- it was easy for me to say that I'm going to continue running those type of stories for the National Enquirer.

Q: And did you believe that that would help Mr. Trump's campaign?

A: I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign; it would also help me.

The jury also heard the testimony where Pecker testified that he never purchased stories to kill for Trump prior to the 2016 election.

Q: And what was the purpose of notifying Michael Cohen when you came upon stories like that?

A: Well, as I did in the past, that would be in the past eight years, when I notified Michael Cohen of a story that was a negative story, he would try to vet it himself to see if the story was true or not. He would go to the individual publication to get the story to make sure the story wasn't published and getting killed.

Q: Prior to that August 2015 meeting, had you ever purchased a story to not print it about Mr. Trump?

A: No.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche suggested to the jury why Stormy Daniels was called as a witness, given there was no dispute about a nondisclosure agreement being signed and that she knew nothing about the records in question.

"I'll tell you why -- they did it to try to inflame your emotions. They did it to try to embarrass President Trump" Blanche said.

It drew a loud objection from prosecutors that was overruled.

Trump has disputed the sexual encounter ever happened.