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.

Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club was worth more than $1.2 billion in 2021 -- roughly double the value listed in Trump's statement of financial condition -- according to defense expert Lawrence Moens.

Describing Mar-a-Lago as a castle nestled on 17.6 acres of waterfront property, Moens said he determined the value by considering nearby properties and adding the total value of the club's 500 memberships, which in 2021 cost $350,000 each.

Between 2011 and 2021, Moens' analysis found that Trump undervalued Mar-a-Lago in his statements of financial condition -- but his analysis appeared to be based on Trump being able to sell the property to an individual to use it as a private residence, which the New York attorney general says Trump is prohibited from doing based on a 2002 deed he signed that would "forever extinguish their right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use."

Judge Engoron only qualified Moens as an expert on the value of residential real estate.

Moens spoke with confidence about his ability to value real estate in Palm Beach, saying that he has sold billions of dollars of real estate since his first sale as a broker in 1982. Asked if any broker has sold more Palm Beach real estate than he has, Moens replied, "They don't exist."

"I am on the front lines everyday of selling properties, and I have a pretty good handle of what is going on currently in the market," Moens said. He later added, "My numbers are usually right."

Moens also put together a seven-minute promotional video about Mar-a-Lago, which was played during his testimony. Set to relaxing music, the video included high-resolution drone shots and dramatic panning shots of the property's amenities. After the video played, Moens highlighted details such as hand-carved stones, gold decorations that cost millions to construct, and other details that required years of work from tradesmen.

"I invited the attorney general's office to come see it anytime. The offer still stands," Moens said. "I will make sure he is not there when you come," he said of Trump.

Engoron appeared attentive to Moen's testimony -- but once Moens left the courtroom, he indicated that he wasn't as concerned about Mar-a-Lago's specific value as he was about whether it was misrepresented.

"I see this case about the documents -- whether the defendants used false documents when transacting business," Engoron said. "I am not trying to figure out what the value is ... I don't necessarily consider it relevant."