Taking the witness stand as an expert witness for the defense, accountant Jason Flemmons offered testimony in support of Donald Trump's approach to valuing his Mar-a-Lago property, which has been the subject of debate throughout the seven weeks of the trial.

In his summary judgment decision, Judge Engoron found that Trump overvalued the estate by at least 2,300% because the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the property's market value between $18 and $27.6 million after Trump signed a deed that restricted its use to a social club, potentially limiting its resale value as a residence but ensuring a tax cut. Trump, in contrast, listed its value in his financial statement between $426 million and $612 million, and during his appearances in court and online he has repeatedly attacked Engoron's finding.

Flemmons argued that Trump's approach to valuing his assets gave him latitude to consider his property's future revenue streams. That approach, according to Flemmons, could result in "wildly different values" between the numbers listed on a personal financial statement and a tax assessed value.

"Tax assessed values are typically on the lower end of the spectrum," Flemmons said, while Engoron looked on attentively.

While he never mentioned Mar-a-Lago by name, Flemmons was asked by defense attorney Jesus Suarez about a hypothetical property assessed at $18 million but valued closer to $500 million using a comparable sales approach -- the same approach used to value Mar-a-Lago.

"It would not be unusual to have a value in the hundreds of million using projected cash receipts," Flemmons said.

Engoron then turned his chair toward Flemmons and began asking his own questions.

"I am trying to get to the order of magnitude we are talking about here," Engoron said. "What is the highest value you have ever seen legitimately placed on such a property?"

Flemmons could not provide a specific example to answer Engoron's question but reiterated that a massive discrepancy could be appropriate.

House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Michael Turner and House GOP Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik have requested that the Department of Justice investigate Michael Cohen for perjury following his testimony in the trial last month.

During his trial testimony, Cohen said that he lied to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2019 when he said that Donald Trump and Allen Weisselberg did not ask him to inflate Trump's personal statement.

"So, you lied under oath in February of 2019? Is that your testimony?" defense attorney Alina Habba asked in court.

"Yes," Cohen responded.

Shown his 2019 testimony in court, Cohen subsequently reversed himself and said that his 2019 testimony was truthful, explaining the contradiction by clarifying that Trump speaks like a "mob boss" and that he indirectly asked for his statement to be inflated.

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland sent today, Stefanik and Turner requested that the Department of Justice open an investigation into Cohen potentially committing perjury.

"That Mr. Cohen was willing to openly and brazenly state at trial that he lied to Congress on this specific issue is startling," they wrote. "His willingness to make such a statement alone should necessitate an investigation."

Last week, Stefanik sent a separate judicial complaint to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct related to the conduct of the judge overseeing Trump's trial. In a statement to ABC News, a court representative said in response that the judge's actions "speak for themselves."

Donald Trump's lawyers abruptly stopped the testimony of their first expert witness -- who was expected to testify for a full day or two -- after Judge Engoron limited the topic areas of his testimony.

Steven Witkoff, a real estate investor and longtime friend of Trump's, was brought into court by the defense team to testify that Trump's Doral golf club was undervalued in Trump's financial statements.

But Judge Engoron sustained an objection from the state barring any testimony about the valuation of Doral, significantly limiting Witkoff's testimony and appearing to hamper the defense strategy proposed by Trump's attorney Chris Kise.

Kise argued that the inaccuracies in Trump's statement of financial condition can cut both ways: Even if some properties were overvalued, other properties like Doral were significantly undervalued and balanced out the statement, according to Kise.

"It is highly, extraordinarily relevant if there are assets that are undervalued substantially on those same statements," Kise said. "They can't look at this one-sided."

State attorney Andrew Amer fiercely rebutted that argument, telling Engoron he should not take the defense's position that the inconsistencies "come out in the wash."

That argument appeared to convince Engoron, who said that overvaluations would not "insulate" a false valuation. He promised to sustain any objection that related to the value of Doral -- an approach Kise described as "lunacy."

"The reader of the financial statement has the right to know whether each particular number was accurate," Engoron said. "They are looking for accuracy."

As court got underway this morning, Judge Engoron -- who has said he has received harassing messages regarding his role in the trial -- did not address Trump's sharing of a post on his Truth Social platform calling for his arrest.

The former president yesterday shared a user's post calling for the "citizens arrest" of Engoron and Attorney General Letitia James "for blatant election interference and harassment."

When he expanded the case's limited gag order earlier this month, Engoron said that his chambers had received hundreds of "harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters, and packages" since the start of the trial.

The gag order does not prohibit attacks against Engoron himself or the New York attorney general.

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.