Defense expert Jason Flemmons described the disclaimer included in Donald Trump's financial statement as the "highest level disclaimer" that could have been provided to bankers reviewing the document.

Flemmons said that the disclaimer, which he said includes "highly cautionary language," would allow a user to make claims that significantly departed from generally accepted accounting principles, known in the industry as GAAP.

"Was that language present in a substantially similar form in the compilation statements issued by Mazars for Donald Trump?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked.

"Yes," Flemmons said, adding that the disclaimer was "effectively saying 'user beware.'"

During his testimony and in statements to the media, Trump has claimed that the disclaimer shields him from liability in the case.

Suarez also used Flemmons' testimony to suggest that Trump's external accountants were responsible for understanding the methods used in the financial statement and determining their appropriateness.

That appeared to conflict with testimony of former Trump accountant Donald Bender of Mazars USA, who described his role as akin to plugging numbers provided by the Trump Organization into a template.

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.

House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Michael Turner and House GOP Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik have requested that the Department of Justice investigate Michael Cohen for perjury following his testimony in the trial last month.

During his trial testimony, Cohen said that he lied to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2019 when he said that Donald Trump and Allen Weisselberg did not ask him to inflate Trump's personal statement.

"So, you lied under oath in February of 2019? Is that your testimony?" defense attorney Alina Habba asked in court.

"Yes," Cohen responded.

Shown his 2019 testimony in court, Cohen subsequently reversed himself and said that his 2019 testimony was truthful, explaining the contradiction by clarifying that Trump speaks like a "mob boss" and that he indirectly asked for his statement to be inflated.

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland sent today, Stefanik and Turner requested that the Department of Justice open an investigation into Cohen potentially committing perjury.

"That Mr. Cohen was willing to openly and brazenly state at trial that he lied to Congress on this specific issue is startling," they wrote. "His willingness to make such a statement alone should necessitate an investigation."

Last week, Stefanik sent a separate judicial complaint to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct related to the conduct of the judge overseeing Trump's trial. In a statement to ABC News, a court representative said in response that the judge's actions "speak for themselves."

Donald Trump's lawyers abruptly stopped the testimony of their first expert witness -- who was expected to testify for a full day or two -- after Judge Engoron limited the topic areas of his testimony.

Steven Witkoff, a real estate investor and longtime friend of Trump's, was brought into court by the defense team to testify that Trump's Doral golf club was undervalued in Trump's financial statements.

But Judge Engoron sustained an objection from the state barring any testimony about the valuation of Doral, significantly limiting Witkoff's testimony and appearing to hamper the defense strategy proposed by Trump's attorney Chris Kise.

Kise argued that the inaccuracies in Trump's statement of financial condition can cut both ways: Even if some properties were overvalued, other properties like Doral were significantly undervalued and balanced out the statement, according to Kise.

"It is highly, extraordinarily relevant if there are assets that are undervalued substantially on those same statements," Kise said. "They can't look at this one-sided."

State attorney Andrew Amer fiercely rebutted that argument, telling Engoron he should not take the defense's position that the inconsistencies "come out in the wash."

That argument appeared to convince Engoron, who said that overvaluations would not "insulate" a false valuation. He promised to sustain any objection that related to the value of Doral -- an approach Kise described as "lunacy."

"The reader of the financial statement has the right to know whether each particular number was accurate," Engoron said. "They are looking for accuracy."

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."