Trump attorney Chris Kise grew visibly frustrated as today's proceedings moved on to arguments over the state's motion to preclude testimony from four of the defense's expert witnesses that the state argues are no longer relevant to the case.

After state attorney Andrew Amer argued in favor of the motion, Kise suggested he belongs in totalitarian Russia.

"I suggest Mr. Amer check the internet," Kise said. "Vladmir Putin has some openings. That is where he belongs."

Describing the comment as "completely uncalled for," Judge Engoron suggested that Kise apologize to Amer.

"I am not going to apologize," Kise said, though he promised to refrain from "further pejoratives."

Judge Arthur Engoron did not immediately rule on the defense's motion for a directed verdict that would end the trial early.

Instead, the judge simply said the arguments were being "taken under advisement."

Wrapping up his argument for a directed verdict, defense attorney Chris Kise channeled some of the rhetoric of his client, praising Donald Trump for helping the community and "reshaping the skyline of New York."

"What building has the attorney general built in this community?" Kise asked.

State attorney Kevin Wallace, arguing against the defense's motion for a directed verdict to end the trial early, reiterated that the state's case relies on documents that they say incriminate Donald Trump and his adult sons.

"This is a documents case," Wallace said. "Each of the three defendants signed documents saying they were responsible for the fair presentation of the statements."

While the defendants all testified that they relied on accountants, Wallace said by way of analogy that it's like the defense saying that using an accountant absolves an individual of filing false tax returns.

"I am liable for that fraudulence," Wallace said. "I am not relieved of my responsibility because I handed off to an accountant."

Clifford Robert, a lawyer for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., argued that his clients were caught in a political "fight between the attorney general and their father" and should be cleared from the fraud case, as part of the defense's motion for a directed verdict to end the trial

"The evidence is clear that my clients had no real involvement in the preparation of the statement of financial condition," Robert said in reference to the allegedly fraudulent documents that are at the center of the New York attorney general's case.

To demonstrate his point, Robert highlighted testimony from six witnesses who attested that Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were not involved in the preparation of their father's financial statements.

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.