State attorney Kevin Wallace, cross-examining defense expert Jason Flemmons, attempted to challenge Flemmons' testimony by pressing the accountant on his experience with personal financial statements and his work reviewing Trump's statements.

Flemmons testified that he himself had compiled fewer than five statements of financial condition, none of which were done after 2000. He also acknowledged that he did not review each of Trump's financial statements between 2011 and 2021, which are the subject of the New York attorney general's complaint.

Flemmons generally underplayed the importance of the financial statements by suggesting that most issues Wallace raised were "easily curable with a phone call."

Asked if he could provide a specific example where he was involved in such a follow-up inquiry, Flemmons failed to offer an example and instead generally referred to his time working for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

The defense's accounting expert could not identify any departures from generally accepted accounting principles -- known as GAAP -- in Donald Trump's statements of financial condition that were not disclosed, according to his testimony.

"I don't believe I have identified any additional discrepancies with GAAP that were not covered by those disclosures," Jason Flemmons testified toward the end of his direct examination.

Flemmons also testified that the statements appropriately cited their use of appraisals, challenging the state's assertion that Trump ignored vital appraisal information.

"Was the use of appraisals accurately described in the statements?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked.

"I believe so. I don't believe there was anything that contradicted the use of appraisals but also other bases for evaluating the properties," Flemmons responded.

Suarez concluded his lengthy direct examination, setting up state attorney Kevin Wallace's cross-examination of Flemmons.

After Jason Flemmons, the defense’s expert accounting witness, had testified at length about how Donald Trump's financial statements included adequate disclaimers to explain his departure from normal accounting standards, Judge Engoron interjected to push back on the testimony.

That prompted Flemmons to confirm he is attesting largely to the general accounting methods used by the Trump Organization -- not the specific numbers they provided for each of their assets.

As Flemmons gets further into his second day on the stand, Judge Engoron's initial enthusiasm regarding his testimony appears to be on the wane, with the judge sustaining more of the state’s objections and asking increasingly skeptical questions.

Donald Trump disclosed that 95% of the assets listed in his 2014 statement of financial condition departed from generally accepted accounting principles -- known in the industry as GAAP -- according to the defense's expert witness Jason Flemmons.

The testimony from the defense's accounting expert bolsters Trump's argument that the departures from GAAP in his statements were adequately disclosed to lenders, making the lenders themselves responsible for drawing their own conclusions about the valuations listed in the documents.

It also supports the defense's position that Trump's statements fell within the regulations on personal financial statements, thus shielding him from allegations of fraud.

Citing their ethical obligations, lawyers for the defendants in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial declined to provide details about "rumors of any kind" involving former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and urged Judge Arthur Engoron to make a decision solely based on the evidence presented at trial, after Engoron asked them to weigh in on public reports that Weisselberg was engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan DA's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.

In a letter submitted to Judge Engoron Wednesday, defense attorney Clifford Robert urged the judge to strictly consider the record from the trial in his final decision, describing his request to provide information about Weisselberg based on a New York Times article "unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling."

"The Article simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg's testimony in this case. Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court's request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling," Robert wrote.

In a separate letter, Alina Habba -- who represents Weisselberg in the civil case but is not his criminal defense lawyer -- declined to provide any information about the potential perjury and argued that no further action was needed on the matter.

"The New York Times article is neither admissible nor reliable, and it should not be considered in Your Honor's determination as to the merits of this case," Habba wrote. "We urge you to render your decision based solely on the evidence now before you."

"Court decisions are supposed to be made based on the evidence at trial, not on media speculation," defense attorney Chris Kise said in a statement.