Defense attorney Emil Bove is scheduled to continue his cross-examination of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker this morning, on Day 8 of former President Donald Trump's hush money trial.

On Thursday, under direct examination, Pecker detailed his publication's "catch-and-kill" deal with Trump, explaining how his publication paid Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for the exclusive rights to her story about an alleged year-long relationship she had with Trump, then kept it under wraps so it wouldn't "embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign."

Under cross-examination from Bove, Pecker testified that there was "nothing wrong" with those kind of arrangements, and that they were "standard operating procedure" for publications like his, listing several politicians -- including Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Arnold Schwarzenegger -- for whom he had caught and killed stories.

Former President Trump, exiting the courtroom at the end of Day 7 of his trial, called the day's court proceedings "breathtaking."

He specifically remarked on the Supreme Court's hearing this morning on his bid for presidential immunity in his federal election interference case, which Trump was forced to miss due to his criminal trial.

"I heard the meeting was quite amazing. The justices were on their game," Trump said.

-ABC News' Kelsey Walsh and Mike Pappano

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass alleged that defense attorney Emil Bove used a "totally improper line of questioning" during Bove's cross-examination of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.

Judge Juan Mechan, addressing Bove, at one point raised his voice slightly, saying, "Are you missing my point? Because I don't think you are responding to what I am saying."

Merchan said that the jurors will be corrected about the alleged misimpression at the start of court tomorrow.

The judge then adjourned the day's proceedings, with court scheduled to resume at 9:30 a.m. ET Friday.

In his cross-examination of David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher who ran the publication's parent company, AMI, defense lawyer Emil Bove sought to draw a contrast between AMI's conduct with Donald Trump and its work with another celebrity-turned-politician: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Earlier today, Pecker testified about an agreement with Schwarzenegger ahead of the actor's run for California governor. According to Pecker, Schwarzenegger agreed to serve as an editor-at-large for some of AMI's fitness magazines in exchange for help quashing negative stories about Schwarzenegger's past interactions with women.

"A number of women called up the National Enquirer about stories that they have to sell on different relationships or contacts and sexual harassment they felt that Arnold Schwarzenegger did," Pecker said. "The agreement I had with Arnold was I would call him and advise him of any stories that were out there."

Pecker described that his arrangement with Schwarzenegger -- which he said resulted in an "embarrassing" investigation into AMI's conduct -- provided him with some foundational experience when he began identifying and killing stories for Trump.

"That's how I became sensitive on this topic," Pecker.

Pressed on cross-examination about the arrangement with Schwarzenegger, Pecker acknowledged that AMI spent its own money to kill stories about the former California governor.

"It was hundreds of thousands of dollars," Pecker said.

"And Mr. Schwarzenegger never paid you back for that?" Bove asked.

"No, he didn't," Pecker said.

Pecker also testified about an effort to compel Tiger Woods to do an interview with AMI's fitness magazines by purchasing a negative story about him as leverage.

A woman who works for New York City told the court, "I'm a public servant and I've built my entire career trying to serve the city I live in and I see this as an extension of that," as individual questioning of prospective jurors continued.

She had signaled she had strong views about campaign finance, but said "I don't believe so" when Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass asked whether that would affect her ability to judge the case fairly.

Earlier, a self-employed woman who has lived on the Upper East Side for 25 years let out an audible sigh.

She had reached the part of the questionnaire that asked whether she can decide the case solely on the evidence and whether she had strong beliefs about Trump that would inhibit her from being fair.

"I'm not 100% sure I could be fair," the woman said, and was excused.

When a school teacher from Harlem who is in her late 20s answered the same question, she spoke about the 2020 election.

"There was a divide in the country and I can't ignore that," she said. "However, I never equated that to one individual." She remained in the jury pool.