Exiting court during the break, Trump told reporters positioned nearby that the financial statements being reviewed in court included disclaimers, which his legal team has argued absolves him of wrongdoing.

"This case is a scam," Trump said during his walk back to court.

When asked if he would consider testifying, Trump said he might.

An attorney with for the New York attorney general's office spent the first hour of direct examination methodically walking Mazars accountant Donald Bender through the Trump Organization's financial documents from 2012 through 2016.

As he addressed each document, Bender reiterated that the Trump Organization and its trustees were responsible for the accounting principles used in the records, the disclosures in reports, and the information from which the reports were based.

The state appears to be using Bender's testimony to not only get Trump's financials statements into evidence, but also to demonstrate the relatively consistent process the Trump Organization used to compile and finalize their statements of financial condition over a decade.

Justice Arthur Engoron, who was a frequent target of Trump's attacks yesterday, began the trial's second day by clarifying some of his closing remarks about the statute of limitations in the case.

After court yesterday, Trump construed his remarks as a victory, suggesting "80% of the cases is over" after leaving court on Monday.

Engoron apologized for his comments and stated that any future real estate deals "restart" the statute of limitations --- meaning that the attorney general's office needs to "connect the dots" to include the evidence about a 2011 deal discussed on Monday.

"I understand that the defendants strongly disagree on this and will appeal on this ground," Engoron said.

He concluded his remarks by reminding counsel not to relitigate issues already decided -- something that Trump's attorneys seemingly did on Day One of the trial.

"This trial is not an opportunity to relitigate what I have already decided ... that is why we have appeals," Engoron said.

Former President Donald Trump continued his attacks on New York Attorney General Letitia James before entering the courtroom for the second day of his $250 million civil fraud trial in downtown Manhattan.

"She ran on the basis 'I will get Trump' without knowing anything about me," he said to reporters outside court.

Both Trump and James are present this morning in court, where state attorneys are set to continue their direct examination of longtime Mazars accountant Donald Bender.

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.