Trump attorney Chris Kise, arguing for a directed verdict to end the trial, said that the state relied on the testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen in an attempt to show that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to defraud lenders -- but that Cohen's inconsistent testimony doomed their effort.

Cohen testified that Trump spoke "like a mob boss" when he indirectly instructed Cohen and then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to inflate his financial statements, without explicitly saying so.

"This is not a man who speaks in code," Kise said, adding that "you will know what it is he wants" within minutes of talking to Trump.

Judge Arthur Engoron responded to Kise by mentioning what Trump called his "perfect call" in 2019 in with Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelenskiy, which became the basis for Trump's first impeachment, as an example of Trump speaking in code.

Kise said that the only other testimony that suggested there was a conspiracy to defraud lenders came from a junior Trump Organization executive who claimed Allen Weisselberg told him, "Mr. Trump wanted his net worth on the statement of financial condition to go up." Trump's lawyers have argued his testimony should be inadmissible as hearsay.

"Even if it came in, that statement alone is not proof of any agreement," Kise said.

The attorney general's office, in response to the defense's request for a directed verdict on the basis that the state failed to show that a bank or insurance company complained of fraud on the part of the Trump Organization, conceded that none of its witnesses were asked directly during the case whether they would have moved forward with a loan to the Trump Organization had they known about the fraudulent valuations alleged by the New York AG.

"Did any bank employee say, 'We would have done it different,' and if so who?" Judge Engoron asked the state attorneys.

"Mr. Haigh said that in his deposition," state attorney Kevin Wallace responded, referring to Nicholas Haigh of Deutsche Bank -- though Wallace acknowledged Haigh was not asked that during his direct examination.

Defense attorney Christopher Kise, in his argument for a directed verdict, said the state failed to present any evidence that a bank or insurance company would have dealt with the Trump Organization differently.

"There's no, even theoretical, argument that the approvals, rates or terms would have been different," Kise said. "Ultimately what matters is the decision-making process of the bank. If they would have approved it with this knowledge, then it's not material."

Kise also argued that the inclusion of the so-called "worthless" disclaimer in Trump's statements of financial condition -- which warned lenders that the valuations in the document required judgment and that they should do their own analysis -- prove that Trump had no intent to defraud.

That prompted Engoron to interject.

"You seem to be saying the fact that someone says 'Don't believe me' proves that they are not lying," Engoron said.

Former President Trump's defense team has moved for a directed verdict in the trial, arguing that New York Attorney General Letitia James has failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for the case to continue.

"The claims of the attorney general involve only successful and profitable loan transactions," defense attorney Christopher Kise argued. "There's no victim, there's no complainant, there's no injury."

Judge Arthur Engoron already determined in a pretrial partial summary judgment that Trump engaged in fraud by duping banks and insurance companies into giving him favorable loan terms based on statements of financial condition that overvalued his assets and inflated his net worth, leaving the trial to determine additional actions and what penalty, if any, the defendants should receive.

The defense is arguing that the state has failed to present evidence that a bank or insurance company complained of fraud or that Trump failed to meet his financial obligations.

"There's no intent to defraud, no defaults, no breach, no unjust profits and no victims," Kise said. "There's no record evidence that anything would have been different with the loan transactions or the insurance transactions."

Defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked Ivanka Trump during cross-examination yesterday what Deutsche Bank executives said after providing the financing for Trump's purchase and renovation of the Doral golf club in Miami.

"They were very happy," Ivanka Trump responded.

"If they believe they're being defrauded by someone, they're not doing business with them," Kise said of the banks.

After resting her case yesterday, New York Attorney General Letitia James expressed confidence in the strength of the case on social media.

"I am confident that we will prevail on the rest of our case because the facts don't lie," James said in a video statement.

James claimed that Ivanka Trump, who testified yesterday, used her father's fraudulent statements to secure vital deals for the Trump Organization, including a Washington D.C. property that yielded the company $139 million in profit. The New York AG is expected to request that Judge Engoron order the disgorgement of those profits by fining Trump more than $300 million.

Trump, in the meantime, continued to falsely allege that the case has been directed by President Joe Biden.

"Even that stupid trial going on in New York, which has been totally discredited -- everybody's been discredited," Trump told supporters at a campaign rally in Hialeah, Florida, last night.

"It comes out of the White House," Trump said without proof of the allegation.

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.