Tabloid publisher takes stand to outline 'great relationship' with Trump in hush-money trial

April 23 (UPI) -- The judge in Donald Trump's hush-money trial on Tuesday delayed a decision on whether the former president should be held in contempt for multiple alleged gag order violations as ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker retook the stand.

Judge Juan Merchan said he will "reserve a decision" on Trump's alleged gag order violation after he heard from the prosecution and Trump's defense counsel. The court then went on a short break at around 10:45 a.m. EDT and reconvened after 11 a.m.

It is not clear how Merchan will rule on the gag order. The judge could punish Trump with penalties up to and including 30 days in jail.

Lawyers for the State of New York claimed Trump has "willfully" breached the gag order barring him from making public statements attacking witnesses, jurors and additional parties related to the case, 10 times and want him fined $1,000 on each count.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who has testified a little over two hours so far in two days, on Tuesday afternoon outlined further details about the alleged "catch and kill" deal under which Pecker was to buy off people who had potentially negative stories about Trump, in order to prevent the information getting to the public.

Pecker says he's had "a great relationship" with Trump going back to 1989 when Pecker had plans to create a "Trump Style" magazine, and the future president had been one of the first people to give Pecker congratulations when he acquired the tabloid.

"He was very helpful in introducing me to other executives in New York. He would always advise me of parties or events that I would go to," Pecker said.

In court on Tuesday, Pecker outlined how there were no "catch-and-kill" stories until 2016 as he remained in contact with Trump's former attorney and "fixer" Michael Cohen, whom he first met by chance in 2000 at a bar mitzvah.

He said he would later collaborate with Steve Bannon and spoke of how the tabloid would go so far as to even buy untrue Trump stories just to keep them quiet.

Pecker told the court how he saw more of Trump after his 2015 announcement of his presidential campaign and after Trump's 2016 election defeat of Hillary Clinton. He said he and Cohen would be in touch monthly until that point in their 2015 "secret arrangement" to help benefit Trump.

That partnership began, he testified, during a 20-25 minute meeting at Trump Tower in New York.

"I would say a minimum of every week, and if there was an issue, it could be daily," Pecker said about his contact with Cohen during the campaign.

Pecker testified how he thought "there would be a lot of women" who would come out to try and sell their stories on Trump.

"It is very common for these women to call up a magazine like the National Enquirer to try and sell their stories," he said speaking of their "mutually beneficial relationship."

"I would hear it in the marketplace through other sources that stories were being marketed," said Pecker.

"It would help his campaign, but it would also help me," Pecker said about the ongoing agreement between he and Trump. "As I recollect, (Trump) was pleased. Michael Cohen was pleased (about) the way I was going to handle these issues."

The prosecution got Pecker to admit that not all elements to his business relationship with Trump had been mutually beneficial.

Trump, he alleges, "would send me information about Ted Cruz or Ben Carson or Marco Rubio, and that was the basis for our story, and we would embellish," Pecker testified as he referenced past stories on the former presidential candidates.

He only shared that information with his top staffers, Pecker said.

"After the Republican debates and based on the success that some of the other candidates had, I would receive a call from Michael Cohen and he would direct me and direct Dylan Howard which candidate and which direction we should go," Pecker said about the National Enquirer's chief content officer and the embellished stories on candidates running in 2016 against Trump.

In court on Tuesday, Trump's defense attorney Todd Blanche claimed "absolutely no willful violation of the gag order" had taken place. Blanche had made the argument that there should be a difference between things Trump puts on Truth Social versus other digital platforms.

"We think that it is important for the court to remind Mr. Trump that he is a criminal defendant, and like all criminal defendants, he is subject to court supervision and, in particular, this court's obligation to preserve the integrity of the Criminal Justice System," said prosecutor Christopher Conroy.

Merchan issued his four-page gag order on grounds Trump had used his high-profile position to make "threatening, inflammatory, denigrating," statements directed at "local and federal officials, court staff, prosecutors and staff assigned to the cases, and private individuals including grand jurors performing their civic duty."

Blanche and Merchan got in a back-and-forth during proceedings about what constitutes an "endorsement" on social media with the judge asking for case law.

"I don't have case law," Blanche said Tuesday morning. "But it's just common sense, your honor."

At one point Merchan had indicated that he might want to have Trump to testify his position on the stand.

"Mr. Blanche, you're losing all credibility with this court," Merchan said at one point.

The gag order hearing took place away from the jury before testimony resumes in the hush-money trial which resumes Thursday.

"Given that the eve of trial is upon us, it is without question that the imminency of the risk of harm is now paramount," read the order that lead prosecutor Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had been pushing for since February.

Merchan subsequently clarified that it extended to family members, including his own, after Trump launched attacks on Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg whom he had called "an animal" -- but significantly Merchan and Bragg are not themselves included.

Trump's trial on 34 counts of falsifying business records, allegedly to disguise a $130,000 hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an affair that might negatively impact his prospects in the 2016 presidential election, kicked off Monday.