New York Attorney General Letitia James has requested a Dec. 8 deadline to respond to what she called the "spurious allegations" in Donald Trump's motion for a mistrial, a day after Trump sought a mistrial claiming bias on the part of Judge Arthur Engoron and his clerk.

If granted, the request would delay any decision on the mistrial motion until later in the trial and likely push any potential appeal until after the trial has concluded.

State attorney Kevin Wallace cited the "considerable daily attention" of the trial and the impending Thanksgiving holiday as reasons for the extended deadline.

"The Office of the Attorney General's position is that -- putting aside the total lack of merit to Defendants' application for a mistrial -- it is preferable to have the Court hear and decide the application on full briefing," Wallace wrote.

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.

An underwriter who worked on a Trump Organization insurance policy to cover legal expenses incurred by the firm's executives is scheduled to testify this morning.

Michael Holl, an underwriter at Tokio Marine HCC, worked on the Trump Organization's Directors and Officers insurance policy in 2016 and 2017, according to the New York attorney general.

With Donald Trump about to be inaugurated president at the time, the Trump Organization attempted to increase their policy's limit to $50,000,000, which was ten times higher than their previous limit, according to the attorney general.

"In response to specific questioning from the underwriters, the Trump Organization personnel represented that there was no material litigation or inquiry from anyone that could potentially lead to a claim under the D&O coverage," the state alleged in their complaint.

However, four months before that representation was made, Trump Organization executives learned about an ongoing investigation by the attorney general into the Trump Foundation as well as Trump family members, according to the complaint.