Q: If AMI had been indicted, that would have affected the value of its assets? A: Uh, yes.
Prompted by Trump's lawyer, Pecker notes that AMI was never charged or prosecuted. Yesterday, Pecker testified: "We admitted to a campaign violation." But Bove notes "there is no violation in this agreement." "In this agreement, no," Pecker says.
Bove highlights the passage of the non-prosecution agreement stating the federal government "will not criminally prosecute" AMI. Asked whether there's an admission to a campaign financial violation in the agreement, Pecker answers: "No."
Trump's lawyer pushes Pecker to say that he didn't understand money to be part of the Trump Tower meeting agreement. But Pecker pushes back: "There was a discussion that I was going to be the eyes and ears of the campaign," including notifying Cohen of women selling stories.
Pecker suggests the latter led to the payoffs to the women.
A long sidebar conference follows. After it ends, Bove asks Pecker about his meeting with the Manhattan DA's office in October 2019.
Bove indignantly asks about Pecker's testimony that Michael Cohen told him Trump had former AG Jeff Sessions "in his pocket." The attorney says it shows Cohen is "prone to exaggeration."
The line from Trump's attorney sparked an objection, which was initially overruled, until prosecutors asked for a sidebar. After the huddle, Bove moved on to another topic.
Cross-ex ends. Assistant DA Joshua Steinglass begins his redirect.
The prosecutor asks about Karen McDougal's contract and Pecker's testimony that its "true purpose" was to smother her story. Pecker agrees with the prosecutor's statement that the purpose of the provisions about McDougal's career was to establish "plausible deniability."
Steinglass shows Pecker this provision of AMI's non-prosecution agreement. "AMI's principal purpose into entering into the agreement was to suppress the model's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election." Pecker agrees this was true.