Donald Trump disclosed that 95% of the assets listed in his 2014 statement of financial condition departed from generally accepted accounting principles -- known in the industry as GAAP -- according to the defense's expert witness Jason Flemmons.

The testimony from the defense's accounting expert bolsters Trump's argument that the departures from GAAP in his statements were adequately disclosed to lenders, making the lenders themselves responsible for drawing their own conclusions about the valuations listed in the documents.

It also supports the defense's position that Trump's statements fell within the regulations on personal financial statements, thus shielding him from allegations of fraud.

Judge Arthur Engoron did not issue a ruling on the defense's motion for a mistrial in court, opting to give the New York attorney general time to determine if the state wants to respond to the request.

"I would ask if we could have until tomorrow to determine if we want to put in anything," state attorney Kevin Wallace said after Engoron's asked if the state plans to file a response.

The testimony of expert witness Jason Flemmons is now resuming.

In their motion for a mistrial, lawyers for Donald Trump and his adult sons argue that Judge Engoron has "predetermined the outcome of this proceeding and is merely going through the motions before it ultimately doles out punishment."

Writing that the actions of both Engoron and his clerk create an appearance of impropriety that has resulted in "biased rulings," Trump's lawyers warn of wide-reaching implications.

"Left unchecked, the introduction of such demonstrable pro-Attorney General and anti-Trump/big real estate bias into a case of worldwide interest involving the front-runner for the Presidency of the United States impugns the integrity of the entire system," they write.

Their three-pronged motion argues that the extrajudicial conduct of Engoron, the political activity of his clerk, and their rulings -- including their gag order and fines -- are each irreparable harms that can only be remedied by scrapping the entire trial.

"Only the grant of a mistrial can salvage what is left of the rule of law," they write.

A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James described Donald Trump's motion for a mistrial as an effort "to dismiss the truth and the facts."

"Donald Trump is now being held accountable for the years of fraud he committed," the spokesperson said. "He can keep trying to distract from his fraud, but the truth always comes out."

Trump's motion for a mistrial takes aim at Judge Engoron as well as his law clerk, who frequently collaborates with the judge before he rules on objections, the admissibility of evidence, and other legal matters.

The judge imposed a limited gag order prohibiting statements about his staff after Trump posted about the clerk on social media.

Deutsche Bank was a serious company in business with Donald Trump to make money, defense attorney Jesus Suarez said during his cross examination of former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh.

At the height of its relationship with the Trump Organization the company loaned Trump over $378 million, and failed to commission independent appraisals of Trump's properties, Haigh acknowledged. While the bank listed lower estimates for the value of Trump's assets year after year, it continued to do business with Trump and his company.

"We ... the bank hadn't done all the due diligence one would do in the sense of the opinion of value you see in an appraisal," Haigh said, at one point agreeing with the defense's characterization that the bank's internal value services group conducted "sanity checks'' on the numbers.

The direct examination of Haigh by state attorney Kevin Wallace also left a central question about Deutsche Bank's activity unanswered.

In a letter to the court and in previous arguments, lawyers for the attorney general suggested that Haigh might have turned away Trump's business if he had known that Trump's assets were inflated in value.

"As this Court noted during summary judgment arguments, Mr. Haigh testified during OAG's investigation that he may not have authorized lending to the borrower if he had at that time been aware of the inflated asset values contained in Mr. Trump's SFCs [statements of financial condition]," a lawyer for the attorney general wrote to the court in a letter last week.

Wallace never directly posed the hypothetical to Haigh during his direct examination, leaving the question unresolved.

Court subsequently adjourned for the day, with Suarez telling the court he plans to continue his cross examination of Haigh through Thursday afternoon.