Donald Trump’s fixer-turned-foe Michael Cohen returned to the witness stand Tuesday, testifying in detail about how the former president was linked to all aspects of a hush money scheme that prosecutors say was aimed at stifling stories that threatened his 2016 campaign.

Trump, the first former U.S. president to go on trial, was joined at the courthouse by an entourage of lawmakers that included House Speaker Mike Johnson, who claimed the case was politically motivated. Their presence was a not-so-subtle show of support meant not just for Trump but also for voters tuning in from home and for the jurors who are deciding Trump’s fate.

It was a remarkable moment in American politics as the person second in line to the presidency held a news conference outside while the proceedings were playing out, using his powerful pulpit to attack the U.S. judicial system and seeking to turn his political party against the rule of law by declaring the trial illegitimate.Cohen resumed his place on the witness stand a day after placing Trump at the center of the hush money scheme. He testified Monday that Trump had promised to reimburse him for the money he fronted for the payments and that Trump was constantly apprised of the behind-the-scenes efforts to bury stories feared to be harmful to the campaign.

Jurors were following along as Manhattan prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, in a methodical and clinical fashion, walked Cohen through the process of his reimbursement for a hush money payment on behalf of Trump to the porn actress Stormy Daniels.

It was an attempt to show what prosecutors say was a month-by-month deception to mask the true purpose of the payments. Some members of the 12-person panel were taking notes and alternating their gaze back-and-forth between Hoffinger and Cohen.

As jurors were shown the paperwork and business records that make up the crux of the case, Trump’s former fixer explained the purpose of the documents. Cohen reiterated again and again that he had no retainer agreement with Trump and that the payments were reimbursements, not for legal services rendered. It’s an important distinction, because prosecutors allege that the reimbursement records falsely described the purpose of the payments as legal expenses done pursuant to a retainer.

“Were the descriptions on this check stub false?” Hoffinger asked.

“Yes,” Cohen said.