"Do you know someone by the same of Stephanie Clifford?"

The question, by assistant district attorney Josh Steinglass, was the jury's introduction during the evidentiary phase of the trial to the woman whose long-denied claim of a sexual tryst with Donald Trump set in motion the alleged falsification of business records.

"Stormy Daniels is, or was, a porn star," former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker replied, using Clifford's stage name.

Pecker was having dinner with his wife on a Saturday night in early October 2016 when he said he received an urgent call from National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard.

"He said that she, she being Stormy Daniels, is trying to sell a story that she had a sexual relationship with Donald Trump, and Dylan can acquire the story for $120,000 from Keith Davidson if we made a decision right now," Pecker recalled.

In a series of text messages the jury saw, Howard told Pecker, "I know denials were made in the past but this story is true."

Pecker replied to Howard, "We can't pay 120k." The company had already paid $30,000 for the Dino Sajudin story and $150,000 for the Karen McDougal story, and Pecker recalled thinking, "I am not a bank."

In the text exchange, Howard responded, "Perhaps I call Michael and advise him and he can take it from there, and handle."

Pecker texted back, "Yes a good idea."

Pecker recalled having "a number of conversations" with Michael Cohen about Stormy Daniels. Cohen wanted Pecker to catch and kill the story.

"I said, 'I am not purchasing this story, I am not going to get involved with a porn star,'" Pecker testified he told Cohen. "He was upset and said the boss would be furious with me."

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker described his concern about the way Trump's repayment for the catch-and-kill purchase of Karen McDougal's story would appear in his company's accounting system.

Pecker testified that he put a different label on the invoice to Trump attorney Michael Cohen's LLC for the repayment because he "did not want to have a payment received in the company's finance department from the Trump Organization or Michael Cohen."

"Why not?" the prosecutor asked him.

"Because I believed that that payment would raise a lot of questions and issues," Pecker testified.

Ultimately, Pecker said, he became uncomfortable with being reimbursed by Trump or Cohen after speaking with his legal counsel.

"To be clear, Mr. Pecker, did AMI ever get reimbursed?" the prosecutor asked, referring to the Enquirer's parent company.

"No," Pecker answered.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker described one of the most heated moments so far during the catch-and-kill arrangement between him, Donald Trump and Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen.

When Cohen approached Pecker with a plan to reimburse the National Enquirer for buying the exclusive rights to Karen McDougal's story, the two men drew up paperwork in which Cohen would repay the Enquirer's parent company, AMI, through a shell company he created, Pecker said.

But Pecker testified that he had a change of heart after consulting with his general counsel.

"I called Michael Cohen and I said to him that the agreement we signed -- the deal was off. I am not going forward, it is a bad idea," Pecker testified. "I want you to rip up the agreement."

"He was very, very, angry. Very upset, screaming basically at me. And I said, I'm not going forward with this agreement, rip it up," Pecker said.

Pecker said Michael Cohen then brought up "the boss."

"And Michael Cohen said, the boss is going to be very angry with you. And I said, I'm sorry, I am not going forward. The deal is off," Pecker recounted. "And he said, I can't believe it. I'm a lawyer, I'm your friend. I don't understand why you're not going forward. I said I am not going forward. Period."

Pecker previously described at length that he was aware that the National Enquirer's payment to Karen McDougal in order to catch and kill her story for the benefit of Trump's campaign would amount to an illegal campaign contribution -- softening his tone when he testified to this.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified that he believed Donald Trump had knowledge about the $150,000 contract to buy Karen McDougal's silence regarding an alleged year-long affair.

"Do you know if anyone else besides Michael Cohen had any knowledge of this contract?" prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked.

"Yes, I believe Donald Trump did," Pecker responded.

"Was your principal purpose to suppress the story to prevent it from influencing the election?" Steinglass asked.

"Yes," Pecker said.

"Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election made in coordination with or at the request of a candidate or campaign were unlawful?" Steinglass asked.

Pecker said he was aware and confirmed that the Enquirer's parent company, AMI, never reported the payment to the Federal Election Commission.

"We purchased the story so it wouldn't be published by any other organization," Pecker said.

"Why did you not want it to be published by any other organization?" Steinglass asked.

"We didn't want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign," Pecker said.

"Who is we?" Steinglass followed up.

"Myself and Michael Cohen," Pecker said.

According to Pecker, AMI agreed to the $150,000 payment on the promise that Donald Trump or the Trump Organization would reimburse AMI for the payment. He frequently followed up with Cohen about the reimbursement and got a similar answer from Cohen.

"Why are you worried? I am your friend. The boss will take care of it," Pecker said about Cohen's response.

At the end of the court day, Judge Juan Merchan denied a request from defense attorney Todd Blanche to excuse Trump from the proceedings in New York next Thursday, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears Trump's bid for presidential immunity in his 2020 federal election interference case.

"It's an incredibly unusual case," Blanche said.

"Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal; I can understand why your client wants to be there," Merchan said -- adding that standing trial in New York is also a big deal.

"Your client is a criminal defendant in New York County Supreme Court. He's required to be here," the judge said.