Donald Trump and his co-defendants have filed a motion seeking a mistrial on the grounds that the trial has been "tainted" by the appearance of bias on the part of Judge Arthur Engoron and his law.

"This appearance of bias threatens both Defendants' rights and the integrity of the judiciary as an institution," Trump's attorneys say in the filing. "As developed herein, in this case the evidence of apparent and actual bias is tangible and overwhelming."

"Specifically, the Court’s own conduct, coupled with the Principal Law Clerk, Allison Greenfield’s unprecedented role in the trial and extensive, public partisan activities, would cause even a casual observer to question the Court’s partiality," they write.

"Such evidence, coupled with an unprecedented departure from standard judicial procedure, has tainted these proceedings and a mistrial is warranted," the filing says.

Donald Trump's lawyers are scheduled to resume their direct examination of expert witness Jason Flemmons this morning, continuing a line of questioning yesterday that largely placed responsibility for Trump's financial statements on Trump's external accountants.

Flemmons, who was qualified as an expert on accounting, explicitly criticized the testimony of Donald Bender, Trump's accountant at Mazars USA who was the New York attorney general's first witness, disputing Bender's claim that he would have wanted to see any appraisals that the Trump Organization conducted.

Flemmons also testified that Trump's financial statements should have sent a "buyer beware" signal to lenders due to the "highly cautionary language" in their disclaimer, which allowed Trump to make claims that significantly departed from generally accepted accounting principles.

To the extent that the statements and the Trump Organization's representations about the statements were inaccurate, Flemmons placed responsibility on Bender and his colleagues at Mazars, rather than the Trump Organization.

Expert witness Jason Flemmons cast doubt on the testimony of the Trump Organization's former external accountant Donald Bender, who said he would have wanted to review any appraisals that the Trump Organization conducted.

"That's not something that is required by professional standards," said Flemmons, testifying for the defense. "His testimony was not professionally plausible."

That prompted a strong objection from state attorney Kevin Wallace.

"Is he trying to say the witness is lying?" Wallace said.

"Not to put too fine a point on it," Judge Engoron quipped.

Asked to confirm what he meant by "professional plausible," Flemmons said it would be "highly unusual" for Bender to request appraisals outside what was mentioned in the statement of financial condition.

"Accountants in the industry do not go seeking records for things that are not in the four corners of the statement of financial condition," Flemmons said.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with Flemmons scheduled to continue his testimony tomorrow.

Defense expert Jason Flemmons described the disclaimer included in Donald Trump's financial statement as the "highest level disclaimer" that could have been provided to bankers reviewing the document.

Flemmons said that the disclaimer, which he said includes "highly cautionary language," would allow a user to make claims that significantly departed from generally accepted accounting principles, known in the industry as GAAP.

"Was that language present in a substantially similar form in the compilation statements issued by Mazars for Donald Trump?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked.

"Yes," Flemmons said, adding that the disclaimer was "effectively saying 'user beware.'"

During his testimony and in statements to the media, Trump has claimed that the disclaimer shields him from liability in the case.

Suarez also used Flemmons' testimony to suggest that Trump's external accountants were responsible for understanding the methods used in the financial statement and determining their appropriateness.

That appeared to conflict with testimony of former Trump accountant Donald Bender of Mazars USA, who described his role as akin to plugging numbers provided by the Trump Organization into a template.

Defense attorney Chris Kise requested that Judge Engoron again reconsider his decision to fine Donald Trump $10,000 for violating the case's limited gag order yesterday, offering a broader criticism of the gag order based on First Amendment grounds.

"This is open, public, and the defendant has a First Amendment right to comment on what he sees and perceives as a potential source of bias," Kise said.

Like yesterday, Kise maintained that Trump was referring to Michael Cohen, rather than the judge's law clerk, during his hallway statement in which he said the judge has a "person who is very partisan sitting alongside of him." Trump attested to this on the stand yesterday, though Engoron found that Trump was "not credible."

"The review of the statement does not support the sanction," Kise said.

Even if Trump was referring to the clerk, Kise made a broader argument that the gag order itself was "constitutionally infirm," considering Trump is the "leading candidate" for the presidency.

"I don't think that the order survives constitutional scrutiny," Kise said.

State attorney Andrew Amer argued in support of the gag order, which he said was narrowly limited to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"A federal judge in D.C. has issued a similar order to protect herself," Amer added, referring to a ruling in Trump's election interference case.

Judge Engoron said he would reconsider the fine but stood by his gag order.