Donald Trump and his co-defendants have filed a motion seeking a mistrial on the grounds that the trial has been "tainted" by the appearance of bias on the part of Judge Arthur Engoron and his law.

"This appearance of bias threatens both Defendants' rights and the integrity of the judiciary as an institution," Trump's attorneys say in the filing. "As developed herein, in this case the evidence of apparent and actual bias is tangible and overwhelming."

"Specifically, the Court’s own conduct, coupled with the Principal Law Clerk, Allison Greenfield’s unprecedented role in the trial and extensive, public partisan activities, would cause even a casual observer to question the Court’s partiality," they write.

"Such evidence, coupled with an unprecedented departure from standard judicial procedure, has tainted these proceedings and a mistrial is warranted," the filing says.

Donald Trump's lawyers are scheduled to resume their direct examination of expert witness Jason Flemmons this morning, continuing a line of questioning yesterday that largely placed responsibility for Trump's financial statements on Trump's external accountants.

Flemmons, who was qualified as an expert on accounting, explicitly criticized the testimony of Donald Bender, Trump's accountant at Mazars USA who was the New York attorney general's first witness, disputing Bender's claim that he would have wanted to see any appraisals that the Trump Organization conducted.

Flemmons also testified that Trump's financial statements should have sent a "buyer beware" signal to lenders due to the "highly cautionary language" in their disclaimer, which allowed Trump to make claims that significantly departed from generally accepted accounting principles.

To the extent that the statements and the Trump Organization's representations about the statements were inaccurate, Flemmons placed responsibility on Bender and his colleagues at Mazars, rather than the Trump Organization.

Expert witness Jason Flemmons cast doubt on the testimony of the Trump Organization's former external accountant Donald Bender, who said he would have wanted to review any appraisals that the Trump Organization conducted.

"That's not something that is required by professional standards," said Flemmons, testifying for the defense. "His testimony was not professionally plausible."

That prompted a strong objection from state attorney Kevin Wallace.

"Is he trying to say the witness is lying?" Wallace said.

"Not to put too fine a point on it," Judge Engoron quipped.

Asked to confirm what he meant by "professional plausible," Flemmons said it would be "highly unusual" for Bender to request appraisals outside what was mentioned in the statement of financial condition.

"Accountants in the industry do not go seeking records for things that are not in the four corners of the statement of financial condition," Flemmons said.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with Flemmons scheduled to continue his testimony tomorrow.

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.

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.