In a social media post this morning, Donald Trump claimed he "wanted to testify on Monday" but blamed his decision not to testify on the trial's limited gag order, which prohibits Trump from commenting on Judge Engoron's staff.

When Trump on Sunday pulled out of his testimony, he touted the strength of his evidence and previous testimony as the reasons he decided not to take the stand.

"Anyway, the Judge, Arthur Engoron, put a GAG ORDER on me, even when I testify, totally taking away my constitutional right to defend myself. We are appealing, but how would you like to be a witness and not be allowed free snd [sic] honest speech," Trump wrote today.

In a statement to ABC News on Monday, Trump attorney Chris Kise also partially blamed the limited gag order for his client's decision not to testify.

"There is really nothing more to say to a Judge who has imposed an unconstitutional gag order and thus far appears to have ignored President Trump's testimony and that of everyone else involved in the complex financial transactions at issue in the case," Kise said.

In a court filing last week, Engoron's attorney wrote that the limited gag order "does not prevent statements about Justice Engoron himself, not the Attorney General or her staff, not the substance of the claims and allegations against petitioners, not the facts or evidence or witness testimony, not the judicial process, nor any other topic concerning the underlying action."

-Peter Charalambous and Soo Rin Kim

Judge Arthur Engoron will allow the New York attorney general to call two witnesses during the state's rebuttal case once the defense rests its case -- over the objection of Trump attorney Chris Kise.

"The government has held these witnesses back," Kise said, arguing against the decision.

While state attorney Kevin Wallace maintained that their two rebuttal witnesses -- Cornell professor Eric Lewis and former Trump Organization executive Kevin Sneddon -- would only address arguments already made in court, Kise argued that the witnesses would be used to backfill evidence that the defense team would not be able to address fully.

"It's not rebuttal. It's filling a hole," Kise said, accusing the state of "gamesmanship" by withholding evidence.

Unconvinced by Kise's argument, Engoron ruled that the witnesses would still be permitted to testify.

"I see no reason not to allow these two purported experts to testify," Engoron said.

In response, Trump's defense attorneys suggested they might attempt to present an additional witness after the state's rebuttal case.

After presenting four weeks of testimony, Donald Trump's lawyers are scheduled to rest their case in the former president's civil fraud trial today.

With Trump no longer testifying as a defense witness, New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov will be Trump's final witness.

Resuming his cross-examination this morning, Bartov is likely to face questions about inconsistencies and potential bias in his analysis of Trump's financial statements. Paid an hourly rate of $1,350 for 650 hours of work, Bartov said last week that he received payments from both the Trump Organization and Trump's Save America PAC.

Bartov strongly defended Trump's statements of financial condition, the documents at the center of the New York attorney general's case, during his testimony last week, saying that he could find "no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud." Bartov also argued the documents were insignificant to the banks that loaned Trump money, which he said used their own analysis to make their loan decisions.

"It is impossible to argue -- it is really absurd to argue -- that Deutsche Bank or any bank or any lender would make lending decisions based on the statements of financial condition," Bartov said. "This should close the book on this case."

Donald Trump's civil fraud trial will resume on Tuesday, following the announcement from the former president that he was canceling his plans to testify Monday in his own defense.

"Donald Trump already testified in our financial fraud case against him," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Sunday afternoon following Trump's announcement. "Whether or not Trump testifies again tomorrow, we have already proven that he committed years of financial fraud and unjustly enriched himself and his family. No matter how much he tries to distract from reality, the facts don't lie."

The trial will continue Tuesday with the cross-examination of the defense's accounting expert Eli Bartov. Once Bartov concludes his testimony, Trump's defense case is expected to rest.

Lawyers for the New York attorney general plan to present a brief rebuttal case, which might conclude as early as Tuesday.

Closing arguments in the case are scheduled for Jan. 11, and a written decision in the case may come in late January.

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.