Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker retook his seat on the witness stand after lunch, and the jury appeared engaged when prosecutor Josh Steinglass asked Pecker to explain things directly to them. Pecker slightly turned to face the jury when answering.

After the defense, during cross-examination, tried to suggest Pecker didn't want to get involved in the Stormy Daniels story for business and reputational reasons, Steinglass asked him to clarify.

"I said to Michael Cohen that after paying for the doorman story and the Karen McDougal story I wasn't going to pay anything further and I wasn't a bank," Pecker testified. "I told (editor) Dylan Howard there is no possible way that I would buy the story for $120,000 and that I didn't want anything to do with a porn star."

Steinglass asked Pecker, "Why did you reach out to Michael Cohen" about Daniels' claim of a sexual liaison with Trump?

"Based on our original agreement, any stories regarding Mr. Trump that could be embarrassing, I would call Michael Cohen right away," Pecker said.

"You weren't going to print it? You weren't going to pay for it?" Steinglass asked.

"Correct," Pecker responded.

"But you were still going to fulfill your obligation to tell Michael Cohen about it? So the campaign could squash it?" asked Steinglass.

"Yes," Pecker responded.

As he has previously, former President Trump complained on social media this morning that his supporters were being kept from gathering outside the courthouse -- even though that's not the case.

"Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial," Trump posted before he entered the courtroom.

But a small group of his supporters demonstrated this morning undisturbed in the designated protest area in the park outside the courthouse, where they've gathered each day of the trial this week.

-ABC News' Brian Hartman

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.

On redirect examination, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass sought to dismantle defense attorney Emil Bove's claim that former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's actions on behalf of Donald Trump were nothing more than "standard operating procedure" in the tabloid industry.

Steinglass cited Pecker's previous testimony that nondisclosure agreements were commonplace in the course of his work.

But, Steinglass asked, "On how many others did the CEO -- meaning you -- coordinate with a presidential candidate for the benefit of their campaign?"

"That was the only one," Pecker said.

Referring to Michael Cohen's input on AMI's negotiation with Karen McDougal, Steinglass asked, "Is it standard operating procedure ... to have a presidential candidate's campaign person weighing in on what terms of a contract are to be amended?"

"No," Pecker replied.

Steinglass ticked through several other matters related to Pecker's arrangement with Trump, including whether it was common practice to offer a political candidate the opportunity to "accept or reject" stories, or for the paper to "run attacks" on their opponents.

Each time, Pecker answered "No" -- that they were not common practice.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified on cross-examination that the publication's limited involvement in Stormy Daniels' hush money payment was unrelated to the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting where Pecker vowed to serve as the "eyes and ears" of Trump's presidential campaign.

Pecker's testimony on cross-examination about the Daniels story appeared consistent with his testimony yesterday about his strong desire not to be involved in the Stormy Daniels payment.

Pecker said yesterday that he did not want to be involved in the story due to concerns about reputational harm to the National Enquirer and a lack of reimbursement for the other payments he had made to suppress previous Trump stories.

"I said, we already paid $30,000 to the doorman, we paid $150,000 to Karen McDougal, and I am not a bank. I am not paying out any further disbursements among us," Pecker testified yesterday. Pecker said he instructed National Enquirer Chief Content Officer Dylan Howard to flag the Stormy Daniels story to Michael Cohen, who made the payment to Daniels himself.

Asked about Daniels' payment on cross-examination, Pecker said that the National Enquirer's limited involvement was unrelated to their vow to Trump.

"You did not consider the Stormy Daniels story to be part of any agreement you had in August 2015?" defense attorney Emil Bove asked.

"That is correct," Pecker said.

"You wanted nothing to do with it?" Bove said.

"That's correct," Pecker said.

Pecker added that he did not "authorize" Howard to continue communicating with Stormy Daniels' lawyer Keith Davidson about the payment.

When Howard raised concerns to Pecker that Davidson had not yet been paid by Michael Cohen, Pecker said he was angry that Howard continued to communicate with Davidson about the story. In addition to the nature of the story -- which Pecker said could endanger the National Enquirer's relationship with its distributors -- Pecker said Cohen's delay in paying Daniels' lawyer could result in reputational harm to the National Enquirer.

"Frankly, you were not happy to be hearing that?" Bove asked about Cohen's delayed payment.

"Yes," Pecker said.

"The main concern was Howard's reputation?" Bove asked.

"Yes," Pecker said.