Following the fourth full day of testimony from witnesses for the defense Thursday, Donald Trump took to social media overnight to tout his case.

The former president posted that defense witnesses have "conclusively" proven that his financial statements were conservative and adequately disclosed, while claiming that New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron "knowingly, substantially, & outrageously" devalued his assets.

After criticizing Engoron's law clerk in a post last night, Trump's latest posts do not reference the clerk, who Trump was previously prohibited from mentioning under the limited gag order that was temporarily lifted yesterday.

Hours after an appeals court temporarily lifted a gag order that prohibited Donald Trump from commenting about court staff in his civil fraud trial, the former president criticized Judge Arthur Engoron's law clerk on social media.

Describing the gag order as "Ridiculous and Unconstitutional," Trump applauded the appeals court for its decision and described Engoron's clerk as "politically biased and out of control."

Engoron issued the limited gag order after Trump made a false social media post about the clerk last month. This evening's post marked the first time Trump has explicitly mentioned her since then.

Trump also attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James, calling her a "worldwide disgrace," and his former attorney Michael Cohen, who testified against him during the trial.

After attentively watching the testimony of the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa, Judge Engoron adjourned court for the day without referencing the stay of his limited gag order issued this afternoon by an appellate court.

The judge's clerk -- who was the subject of Trump's false social media post that triggered Engoron's limited gag order last month -- remained in her regular seat next to the judge after the ruling came down.

Court will resume with Laposa back on the stand Friday.

The New York attorney general's approach to valuing Donald Trump's properties was "flawed," according to testimony from the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa.

Laposa said that the attorney general's complaint relied on a market value analysis of Trump's properties, rather than the investment value of the assets, which would consider the asset's value based on an individual's investment requirements instead of market norms.

"In my opinion, it's flawed," Laposa said about the attorney general's findings.

Judge Arthur Engoron appeared attentive during Laposa's testimony, overruling an objection from the state that would have limited the scope of his testimony.

"I want to hear what he says about evaluations," Engoron said.

Judge Arthur Engoron's attorney argues in a new court filing that the willingness of Donald Trump's followers "to engage in violence to show their support" for Trump justifies the limited gag order in the former president's civil fraud trial.

Trump filed an Article 78 proceeding against Engoron earlier this month to remove the gag orders the judge imposed prohibiting him from commenting on the judge's staff, but a panel of judges vacated a temporary stay of the gag orders last week.

"It is undisputed that Mr. Trump has an inordinate ability to draw attention, fervor, and animosity to those he singles out for attention. Whether he seeks it or not, some of Mr. Trump's followers are willing to engage in violence to show their support," said Engoron's attorney Michael Suidzinski, an assistant deputy counsel with the New York State Office of Court Administration.

Engoron's attorney questioned Trump's need to speak about the judge's staff during the trial or his campaign, adding that the gag order still permits him to criticize Engoron, the attorney general, the case itself, witnesses, and the entire judicial process.

"It is unclear, however, how his ability to talk about Justice Engoron's court staff is necessary for his campaign when this country faces a number of issues more worthy of debate," Suidzinski wrote.

"Given the real and demonstrated likelihood of harm that could come to Justice Engoron's court staff if the gag orders were annulled, Justice Engoron's legitimate and justifiable interest in preventing such harm greatly outweighs the de minimis interference to Mr. Trump's rights," Suidzinski wrote.