The defense successfully challenged a man who said he owns a minority stake in the company that produced Michael Cohen's "Mea Culpa" podcast and said he has a "fairly negative" opinion of former President Trump based on his "negative, divisive rhetoric."

The judge confronted the man with several social media posts, including one referring to Trump with the words "sociopathic incompetence" and another saying of Trump, "I do believe that he is actually the devil."

The judge asked if that reflected his opinion. "I would say it's not far off base," the man replied, and he was immediately excused.

Judge Merchan excused a retired teacher who attended what he considered to be a women's rights rally near the United Nations but that the defense considered to be an anti-Trump rally.

"I did go there because I wanted to take pictures," he said.

The judge confronted him with his social media post of a sign from the rally with a comment that said. "My sentiments exactly."

Merchan said he wasn't sure those sentiments were anti-Trump sentiments, but said he had concerns about the nature of the rally, which, in one post, the man suggested was a "massive anti-Trump rally."

Alternate Juror No. 3 is an audio professional who offered to assist Judge Merchan with a microphone that kept cutting out. He expressed his opinion that "Donald Trump is a man, just like I am."

He said growth results from correcting their prior wrongful actions. "Every man should respond to their wrongdoings if found," he said. "If there is evidence found against a man, there should be consequences."

Alternate Juror No. 4 is a woman who said "I have no really strong opinions about President Trump."

She is married with two boys that she likes to take to Knicks games and Rubik's Cube speed competitions. She has been a contract specialist for 20 years, currently employed at a publicly traded fintech company.

The woman who participated in the Women's March and said Trump enabled homophobic and racist comments was excused. The judge called it "the safer course."

The has seated three more alternate jurors, joining the alternate juror who was seated Thursday. Two more are still needed.

One of the new alternates is a woman originally from Spain who said she has no strong opinions about former President Trump.

The woman said she is not on social media and doesn't watch the news besides skimming through headlines. She said her husband will inform her of the news and that "I don't really go in depth into anything"

The defense was trying to eliminate the young woman who said she heard Trump followers express homophobic and racist things at the boxing gym.

"It's almost like they're devout to him," the woman said of Trump's followers. She is currently being questioned by the judge to assess her views and her ability to be fair and impartial.

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.