Following the fourth full day of testimony from witnesses for the defense Thursday, Donald Trump took to social media overnight to tout his case.

The former president posted that defense witnesses have "conclusively" proven that his financial statements were conservative and adequately disclosed, while claiming that New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron "knowingly, substantially, & outrageously" devalued his assets.

After criticizing Engoron's law clerk in a post last night, Trump's latest posts do not reference the clerk, who Trump was previously prohibited from mentioning under the limited gag order that was temporarily lifted yesterday.

Hours after an appeals court temporarily lifted a gag order that prohibited Donald Trump from commenting about court staff in his civil fraud trial, the former president criticized Judge Arthur Engoron's law clerk on social media.

Describing the gag order as "Ridiculous and Unconstitutional," Trump applauded the appeals court for its decision and described Engoron's clerk as "politically biased and out of control."

Engoron issued the limited gag order after Trump made a false social media post about the clerk last month. This evening's post marked the first time Trump has explicitly mentioned her since then.

Trump also attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James, calling her a "worldwide disgrace," and his former attorney Michael Cohen, who testified against him during the trial.

After attentively watching the testimony of the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa, Judge Engoron adjourned court for the day without referencing the stay of his limited gag order issued this afternoon by an appellate court.

The judge's clerk -- who was the subject of Trump's false social media post that triggered Engoron's limited gag order last month -- remained in her regular seat next to the judge after the ruling came down.

Court will resume with Laposa back on the stand Friday.

The New York attorney general's approach to valuing Donald Trump's properties was "flawed," according to testimony from the defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa.

Laposa said that the attorney general's complaint relied on a market value analysis of Trump's properties, rather than the investment value of the assets, which would consider the asset's value based on an individual's investment requirements instead of market norms.

"In my opinion, it's flawed," Laposa said about the attorney general's findings.

Judge Arthur Engoron appeared attentive during Laposa's testimony, overruling an objection from the state that would have limited the scope of his testimony.

"I want to hear what he says about evaluations," Engoron said.

Donald Trump's lawyers, in a court filing this morning, doubled down on their criticism of the trial's limited gag order while distancing Trump and his co-defendants from what they called the "vile and reprehensible" threats against Judge Arthur Engoron and his principal law clerk.

In a filing arguing against the limited gag order, defense lawyer Clifford Robert said that the attacks -- which he said Trump neither condoned nor directed -- do not justify the gag order's unconstitutional restraint on Trump's free speech.

"Respondents' sole cognizable justification for the Gag Orders is that an unknown third party may react in a hostile or offensive manner to Petitioners' speech," Robert wrote.

While Robert characterized the threats as "disturbing, derogatory, and indefensible," he argued that it could not be proven that Trump's Truth Social post on Oct. 3 -- which prompted the limited gag order prohibiting statements about the judge's staff -- led to an increase in threats. Trump and his lawyers have never called for violence, condoned the attacks, or encouraged threatening behavior, Robert said.

The threatening behavior "merits appropriate security measures," Robert wrote. "However, it does not justify the wholesale abrogation of Petitioners' First Amendment rights in a proceeding of immense stakes to Petitioners," which Robert argued has been "compromised by the introduction of partisan bias on the bench."