The sworn testimony of former President Trump in court yesterday was "hollow and untrue," according to a written order issued today by Judge Engoron.

The order, which memorializes yesterday's ruling that Trump violated the case's limited gag order, offers a stronger repudiation of Trump's sworn testimony than the judge articulated yesterday, when he called Trump's testimony "not credible."

"I then conducted a brief hearing, during which Donald Trump testified, under oath that he was referring to Michael Cohen. However, as the trier of fact, I find this testimony rings hollow and untrue," Engoron wrote in his order.

Like his in-court statements yesterday, Engoron remarked that Trump's hallway statement about "a person who's very partisan sitting alongside him, perhaps even more partisan than he is" was inconsistent with how Trump frequently refers to Cohen. Going as far as to cite the Oxford English Dictionary, Engoron wrote that "alongside" is more likely to refer to his clerk than the witness, who sits below the judge.

"Using imprecise language as an excuse to create plausible ambiguity about whether defendant violated this Court's unequivocal gag order is not a defense; the subject of Donald Trump's public statement to the press was unmistakably clear," Engoron wrote.

Trump's lawyers said they plan to appeal the order.

State attorney Louis Solomon focused on the activities of The Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump's defunct charity organization, during his direct examination of tax lawyer Sheri Dillon.

Dillon, who worked with Trump between 2005 and 2020, testified that she received a letter from the New York attorney general in 2016 regarding a potential violation by Trump's charity, which she discussed with then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Solomon's line of questioning prompted an objection from Trump's attorney Chris Kise, who argued that Trump's charity was irrelevant to the state's case. But Judge Engoron overruled the objection.

"To me, this case is not just about financial statements being submitted to insurance companies. It is about whether or not defendants were committing fraud," Engoron said. "If the evidence shows a particular defendant was consistently acting fraudulently, the law says there can be particular forms of equitable relief."

Dillon testified that she could not recall if Trump Organization executives notified potential insurers about the violation.

Then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood sued the Trump Foundation in 2019 for using money set aside for charitable purposes to settle business disputes and cover political expenses. Trump was eventually ordered to pay $2 million to various charities as part of a settlement.

Judge Engoron is upholding Donald Trump's $10,000 fine for violating the case's limited gag order yesterday.

During a break, Engoron said he reviewed the video of Trump's hallway statement and reached the same conclusion as yesterday: that Trump was referring to Engoron's law clerk when he told reporters that the judge has a "person who is very partisan sitting alongside of him." The gag order prohibits public comments about the judge's staff.

Trump's lawyer Chris Kise had argued that a later portion of Trump's statement supported that he was referring to Michael Cohen, rather than the judge's law clerk.

But Engoron disagreed, saying, "That was a clear transition from one person to another, and I think the person he originally referred to is very clear."

Defense attorney Chris Kise requested that Judge Engoron again reconsider his decision to fine Donald Trump $10,000 for violating the case's limited gag order yesterday, offering a broader criticism of the gag order based on First Amendment grounds.

"This is open, public, and the defendant has a First Amendment right to comment on what he sees and perceives as a potential source of bias," Kise said.

Like yesterday, Kise maintained that Trump was referring to Michael Cohen, rather than the judge's law clerk, during his hallway statement in which he said the judge has a "person who is very partisan sitting alongside of him." Trump attested to this on the stand yesterday, though Engoron found that Trump was "not credible."

"The review of the statement does not support the sanction," Kise said.

Even if Trump was referring to the clerk, Kise made a broader argument that the gag order itself was "constitutionally infirm," considering Trump is the "leading candidate" for the presidency.

"I don't think that the order survives constitutional scrutiny," Kise said.

State attorney Andrew Amer argued in support of the gag order, which he said was narrowly limited to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"A federal judge in D.C. has issued a similar order to protect herself," Amer added, referring to a ruling in Trump's election interference case.

Judge Engoron said he would reconsider the fine but stood by his gag order.

State attorney Kevin Wallace concluded his direct examination of the New York attorney general's second and final rebuttal witness amid frequent objections by defense lawyers.

Lewis attempted to explain how Donald Trump's statements of financial condition failed to disclose that he did not conduct a discounted cash flow analysis, contributing to the over-valuation of some of his assets.

"There is no mention of discounting or future value in the disclosure," Lewis said, disagreeing with testimony from defense expert Jason Flemmons -- as well as former Mazars USA accountant Donald Bender, who testified as a state witness.

“Are you impeaching your own witness?” Engoron asked state attorneys regarding whether Bender’s testimony should no longer be considered credible.

"We didn't feel the need to," Wallace responded.

Lewis also suggested that Trump's external accountants at Mazars had less of an obligation to highlight issues that Flemmons suggested, since they were only conducting a compilation report rather than a more intensive audit. While Mazars had an obligation to flag obvious issues, they were not responsible for ensuring Trump's statements were compliant with generally accepted accounting principles, he testified.

"If while doing the compilation ... something comes to the attention of the accounts that could be a GAAP departure, they have a responsibility to bring that issue to the client," Lewis said regarding generally accepted accounting principles.

During the hour-long direct examination, defense lawyers objected at least 14 times, successfully interrupting the line of questions.

"I am lost," Engoron asked at one point. "Can you put this together?"

The parade of objections visibly irritating Wallace, who voiced his displeasure.

"Petulant outbursts don't really play well in the courtroom," quipped Trump lawyer Chris Kise in response.