As jury selection resumed for the afternoon session, Judge Juan Merchan scolded former President Trump over his audible "muttering" while a prospective juror was speaking.

"Your client was audibly muttering something," the judge told Trump's attorneys. "He was speaking in the direction of the juror. I will not tolerate that. I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make that crystal clear. Take a minute and speak to your client."

The interaction occurred after Trump's defense attorney sought to immediately strike potential jurors for cause based on social media posts that he said contradicted their assertions of fairness.

"There's a number of the jurors that we have social media posts for very much contrary to the answers that they gave," defense attorney Todd Blanche said.

Blanche pointed to a woman who he said has a "series of extraordinarily hostile Facebook posts."

One of the posts read, "So I've been in the middle of the ocean for the last few weeks. What's going on?"

Another post included a video of people celebrating near Manhattan's 96th Street and the words, "Full-on dance party at 96 Street."

Judge Merchan seemed baffled. "Show me the bias," the judge said. "I'm trying to understand. How does this call into question what the juror said when that juror was answering questions?"

Blanche insisted the post, a day after the 2020 election, was a celebration of Trump's loss.

"This is ridiculous," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said.

The judge determined "there are enough questions here" to allow the defense to question the woman about her posts.

"I think I went to the car to alternate-side parking or something like that and there were people dancing in the street," the woman said, adding that it reminded her of the pandemic-era cheer for health workers.

"I understand that bias exists," the woman said. "The job of the juror is to understand the facts of the trial."

When the woman left the room, that's when the judge scolded Trump.

Former President Trump is back at the defense table as court resumes after the lunch break.

While on break, Trump shared on his social media platform a newspaper opinion piece calling his former attorney Michael Cohen a "serial perjurer" and a "legal thug."

The former president, who is under a limited gag order prohibiting him from targeting witnesses in the case, did not add any comment of his own.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche finished questioning the first group of potential jurors, including asking them to think about their social media usage and whether it affects their opinion of Trump.

Blanche asked a man born in Mexico who became a U.S. citizen when Trump was president if that would color his jury experience.

"I think the media and the opinions of my Facebook friends are inconsequential to this trial," the man said. "Feelings are not facts."

A woman who had said she had been living in a WiFi-free lake house for much of February and March said she didn't know much about the case, but she knew about Trump's policies. She said she had "very little agreement policy-wise" with Trump, but told Blanche she "didn't sleep last night" because she was thinking so hard about fairness and impartiality.

"You want your client to have a fair shake. I will do my level-headed best to make sure that happens," she said.

This part of the day clearly interested Trump. He turned his body in the direction of the jury box, shifting his gaze from his lawyer to the people who may sit in judgment of him.

Judge Juan Merchan subsequently recessed the court for a lunch break.

What do you make of Trump?

In answering that question from attorneys, prospective jurors are painting a portrait of the man seated at the defendant's table -- complete with his complexities and his merits.

"President Trump speaks his mind," said one juror, a young black woman who teaches at a charter school. "And I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking."

"He walks into a room, and he sets people off -- one way or another," the juror said. "I find that really interesting. Really -- this one guy can do all of this. 'Wow' -- that's what I think."

Trump smirked when another prospective juror said, "He stirs the pot."

"He speaks his mind," she said. "You can't judge him because he speaks his mind."

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.