With his limited gag order temporarily lifted on Thursday, Trump is continuing to rail against his civil fraud trial on social media, calling for the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James, Judge Arthur Engoron, and Engoron's law clerk.

Describing the case as a "horribly handled persecution of a political opponent," Trump alleged that Engoron himself committed fraud by undervaluing his assets in his pretrial ruling, and that his clerk and James were complicit in the case.

"The World is watching this illegal Witch Hunt," Trump wrote.

Describing Engoron's clerk as a "co-judge" and "highly partisan," Trump's posts over the weekend were the second and third time the former president took aim at the clerk since an appeals court temporarily lifted the gag order preventing him from attacking Engoron's staff. In both posts, Trump explicitly mentioned the clerk by name.

Engoron on Friday denied Trump's request for a mistrial, which alleged bias on the part of the the judge, writing in his ruling, "As I have made clear over the course of this trial, my rulings are mine, and mine alone. There is absolutely no 'co-judging' at play."

Judge Arthur Engoron denied Donald Trump's request for a mistrial, describing the defendants' arguments as "nonsensical," "disingenuous," and "utterly without merit."

Engoron rejected the motion without hearing any arguments from the New York Attorney General, who earlier this week requested that an extended briefing be scheduled.

"I cannot sign a proposed order to show cause that is utterly without merit, and upon which subsequent briefing would therefore be futile," Engoron wrote in his ruling.

Across a four-page order, Engoron sharply disagreed with the allegations from the defendants that he was engaging in "co-judging" with his law clerk.

"As I have made clear over the course of this trial, my rulings are mine, and mine alone. There is absolutely no 'co-judging' at play," Engoron said.

Addressing his principal law clerk's political donations, which the judge said she has largely made in order to purchase tickets to functions while pursuing elected judicial office, Engoron called out the defendants for failing to acknowledge the "applicable unambiguous ethical guidelines" that permit such donations. He similarly dismissed the idea that his clerk attending events sponsored by political organizations implies that she supports any position taken by those groups.

"Such arguments are nonsensical; and in any event, they are a red herring, as my Principal Law Clerk does not make rulings or issue orders -- I do," Engoron said in his ruling.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day.

The due diligence conducted by the Trump Organization's insurance company amounted to nothing more than "airballs and witchcraft," according to the defense's underwriting expert Gary Giulietti.

Giulietti's testimony appeared to cast doubt on the extent to which the Zurich Insurance Group scrutinized Trump's financial documents that are at the center of the case.

In a deposition that was played earlier in court, Zurich insurance underwriter Claudia Mouradian said she relied on assurances that the Trump Organization's $6 billion in assets were supported by appraisals.

"They should have asked if they wanted it," Giulietti testified, adding that Zurich's approach of relying on media reports about Trump's net worth was "inconsistent" with industry standards.

Giulietti acknowledged that he had an ongoing business relationship with Trump, including making $1.2 million in commissions from the company in 2022. A personal friend of Trump, Giulietti confidently defended his business record on the stand.

"You're sort of insulting me aren't you?" he said after state attorney Andrew Amer, on cross-examination, questioned his qualifications as an expert witness. "There's no one like me in the industry."

He later said he was sorry for his response.

"I would like to apologize to the counsel. Not my style," he told Amer.

The cross examination of the defense's real estate expert, which was expected to last at least two hours, ended abruptly after he appeared to contradict his own findings in the expert report he had compiled.

Steven Laposa testified yesterday that he believed the attorney general's report was "flawed" because it was based on the market value of Trump's assets, rather than their investment value, which could be much higher.

Minutes into his cross-examination, state attorney Louis Solomon requested that Laposa read the second sentence of the notes section of Donald Trump's statement of financial condition.

"Assets are stated at their estimated current values," the note said, referring to the properties' market value.

"First time I've seen this," Laposa responded after reading the note, which supported the attorney general's contention that the valuations were indeed based on market values.

"You wrote a report accusing the attorney general of bias" by using market values, Solomon lectured Laposa, prompting a sustained objection from the defense.

Solomon's cross-examination of Laposa concluded after the exchange.

Doug Larson's name appears across five years of Donald Trump's financial documents, according to records entered into evidence.

A longtime professional appraiser with the real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield, Larson was cited in Trump Organization documents as an expert at valuing properties like 40 Wall Street, Trump Tower, and an adjoining retail space called "Niketown." Spreadsheets entered as evidence explicitly reference multiple phone calls with Larson between 2013 and 2017.

When asked about these phone calls in court, Larson testified that no such conversations occurred.

"Is it fair to say that Mr. Trump valued Trump Tower at $526 million in conjunction with you?" state attorney Mark Ladov asked Larson.

"No, that is incorrect," Larson said.

"Were you aware that Mr. McConney was citing you as a valuation source in his work papers?" Ladov asked.

"No, I was not," replied Larson, who said he did not assist Trump Organization executives in valuing Trump Tower, Niketown, or 40 Wall Street, despite Trump's paperwork referencing him as a source.

Evidence presented by the state instead suggested that the valuations were determined using cherry-picked metrics from a generic email Larson sent clients.

"It's a way to get your name out to clients for potential work," Larson said about one such "email blast" that was used in a Trump Tower valuation.

Larson added that the valuations Trump Organization executives determined based on "consultation" with him used flawed methodologies, such as using capitalization rates related to office buildings to appraise the retail Niketown building.

"It doesn't make sense," Larson said about Niketown's $287 million valuation.

"It's inappropriate and inaccurate," Larson said about the Trump Organization relying on his name to support their valuations. "I should have been told, and appraisals should have been ordered."