The case today..

Here's what the defense has focused on so far in its cross-examination of David Pecker

From CNN's Kara Scannell, Lauren del Valle, Jeremy Herb

Donald Trump's attorneys cross-examined David Pecker on Friday morning, poking holes at the veracity of his comments and pointing out a discrepancy between Pecker's 2018 FBI testimony and his testimony in court this week.

Most of the questions centered around American Media Inc.'s business interests, beginning on the topic of running negative articles about Trump's foes, including the Clintons and Ben Carson. The defense was trying to establish that Pecker’s actions were made in line with the company's bottom line in mind.

Here are some of the key points from the cross examination of Pecker:

• Pecker acknowledged that negative press for Trump's foes was generally good for business. Defense attorney Emil Bove elicited from Pecker that he would have run negative information about Carson even without a conversation from Trump, and that source agreements like the ones used for Karen McDougal and doorman Dino Sajudin were made all the time outside of the Trump sphere.
• Pecker said that if the false doorman allegations were true, he would have run it. The defense tried to establish it was good for business for Pecker to get the rights to the story first. Pecker also testified that there was a legitimate business purpose to the agreement between AMI and McDougal.
• Bove elicited from Pecker that “catch and kill” was not discussed at the August 2015 meeting. The meeting has become central to this case and during it, Pecker agreed to be the “eyes and ears” for Trump’s campaign and flag any negative stories to Cohen.
• Defense pointed out discrepancy between Pecker's testimony this week and 2018 FBI interview. Pecker testified this week that Trump thanked him for handling McDougal and Sajudin’s stories during a January 2017 meeting at Trump Tower. But the defense pointed out that "Trump did not express any gratitude to Pecker and AMI" during his 2018 FBI interview. Pecker confirmed the FBI notes were inconsistent with his testimony. Bove also pointed out an error in Pecker’s testimony where he mistook the year he saw a third party agreement relating to the McDougal deal.
• Defense elicited from Pecker that he wanted nothing to do with the Stormy Daniels allegations. Pecker testified his "main concern" about her not having been paid was the harm it could do to National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard's reputation.
• Defense made sure to spell out for the jurors that the McDougal deal was reviewed by an election law attorney. The defense made clear that Pecker believed there would be no legal ramifications.

Pecker confirmed there was a provision related to the federal investigations in a deal with Hudson News Group regarding the sale of the National Enquirer and two other tabloids.

The investigations had to be resolved before the deal could be finalized, he confirmed. The proposed deal was worth $100 million.

Bove asked whether the federal investigation "put some pressure on the negotiations."

Pecker paused before answering. "From a timing standpoint, it would have added onto the stress of the transaction," Pecker said.

"If AMI had been indicted that would have affected the value of its assets," Bove asked while emphasizing "indicted." Pecker agreed.

Bove asked Pecker whether there was a "price pressure" on the agreement. "To Hudson News, the federal investigation was going to reduce the earnings of those magazines," Pecker said.

Bove again confirms with Pecker that American Media Inc. entered into a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors.

Bove asks Pecker whether the meetings with FBI agents were stressful.

"You wanted it over with though, right?" he asks.

"Uh, yes," Pecker says.

Bove is asking Pecker about the time FBI agents came to his home in 2018.

Three agents arrived around 8 a.m. and took Pecker's phone with a search warrant, but did not search his house, the former tabloid boss testifies.