Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, is charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” among other offenses. The case continued into its 101st day at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court) on Tuesday, with Lai testifying for the ninth day. Under questioning by the defense, he confirmed that during a July 2019 dialogue with a U.S. think tank, he had described Hong Kong as fighting for values shared with the United States. Lai mentioned during the discussion that “we are fighting your war in your enemy’s camp,” where “we” refers to Hongkongers and protesters, and the “war” he referred to was a “clash of values.”

The defense asked whether Hong Kong was protesting on behalf of the United States at the time. Lai denied this, stating that Hong Kong’s protests were unrelated to the U.S., emphasizing that Hongkongers were fighting for their own freedoms against Chinese encroachments, and that their values align with those of the U.S., reaffirming that this did not mean Hong Kong was fighting for the U.S.

The case is presided over by designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution is represented by Assistant Commissioner of Criminal Prosecution Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Commissioner of Criminal Prosecution Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Prosecuting Officer Crystal Chan Wing-sum; Lai is represented by senior barrister Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

16: 28 Court Adjourns

15: 49 Lai agrees he once said the most effective sanction is Trump imposing sanctions on corrupt interests of Chinese officials

The defense showcased the layout for the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign, with Lai indicating that the content of the letters was written by Mark Simon, and he agreed with it. Further, the defense displayed a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Cheung Kim-hung from May 27, 2020, where Cheung sent a link to an Apple Daily article about Trump’s displeasure with the “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law.” Lai understood that Trump was sanctioning Chinese officials at the time to obstruct the NSL. The defense asked if Chinese companies were involved in implementing the NSL. Lai believed they were not. Further inquiries on why sanctions were proposed against Chinese companies were met with Lai’s admission of ignorance.

The defense then played a segment from Lai’s Bloomberg interview on May 28, 2020. During the interview, Lai mentioned that the most effective sanctions would be those Trump imposed on the corrupt interests of Chinese officials. Asked if he sincerely believed this, Lai agreed.

Additionally, the defense showed content from Lai’s BBC interview on the same day titled “Jimmy Lai: Enforcing ‘National Security Law’ is Hong Kong’s doomsday, hoping for severe U.S. sanctions.” Lai mentioned, “Action is what will make the Chinese hesitate to impose this draconian law on us,” defining “action” as sanctions.

Before the interview, Lai received a message from Cheung, forwarding a statement by then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo regarding the NSL, which stated, “I certified to Congress today that Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997.”

Upon questioning, Lai suggested there might be harsher sanctions, attributing this belief to his “wishful thinking.”

15:29 Break

15:15 Lai states the plan to send letters to Trump for readers was ultimately not implemented

Addressing Lai’s intent to implement the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign, where Apple Daily would collect letters from readers to send to Trump, the defense asked whether the plan continued. Lai stated that the plan was ultimately not implemented.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired if the intention was for readers to send the letters themselves after seeing them printed in the newspaper. Lai clarified that the letters were to be sent to Apple Daily, which would then forward them to Trump. Lee Wan-tang further questioned whether Apple Daily followed up after collecting the letters. Lai explained that since Apple Daily did not photograph the letters or tag Trump on Twitter, he believed the plan was not executed.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Apple Daily eventually mailed the letters. Lai mentioned that mailing would take a month and deemed it futile. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned if Apple Daily discarded the readers’ letters. Lai was unsure, even unaware of how many letters were received.

Regarding the Apple Daily feature from May 27, 2020, titled “Three Ways to Express Appeals to Trump,” which suggested using Twitter, Facebook, and White House petitions, Lai thought the original method might have evolved into these three approaches. When asked if he was aware of this, Lai stated he had forgotten. Remedios further inquired if Lai knew at the time but forgot now. Lai admitted he probably knew then.

The defense asked why the plan was not executed. Lai did not know and expressed a preference for mailing letters to Trump, considering it more “dramatic.”

15: 00 Defense asks why sanctions against Chinese officials are requested; Lai: Because they proposed the National Security Law

The defense displayed a tweet from Jimmy Lai on May 27, 2020, including a link to an interview on Fox News, where Lai expressed gratitude to Maria Bartiromo for her concern about him and Hong Kongers. “Thank you @MariaBartiomo for being so caring about me and about #HKers. We will continue our #Fightforfreedom, #CCPChina must change or it will be a threat to the freedom of the rest of the world. We must do what it takes and when we can.”

Another tweet stated, “There should be sanction on #CCPChina officials who violate the universal value of human rights. Nations should stop exporting technology. #CCP China must play by the international rules..” Lai indicated that he authored both tweets.

Regarding another tweet from the same day, it read, “Mr. President @realDonaldTrump. You’re a man of his words. You said if China passes the national security act there will be serious consequences.” The second part continued, “The most effective sanction you can impose is to freeze Chinese officials’ bank accounts in the US. Expose how corrupted they are. Your action will be much appreciated not only by #HKers but also the Chinese who are suppressed by #CCP and every soul aspired to be free.”

When asked why sanctions against Chinese officials were necessary, Lai responded that it was because these officials had proposed the implementation of the National Security Law.

14: 30 Lai discussed possible US sanctions against China in a Fox News interview

During a Fox News interview on May 26, 2020, Jimmy Lai discussed the then-imminent National Security Law. When asked how the US could influence China’s actions, Lai suggested that the US could sanction Chinese officials by freezing their corrupt funds and targeting China’s technology, exerting pressure on the Chinese government from various angles. When asked if he advocated for sanctioning the corrupt funds of Chinese officials, Lai agreed.

Further questioned whether his call to sanction China’s technology implied advocating hostile actions towards China, Lai clarified that these were not hostile actions, but sanctions. He specified that the sanctions would target the nation, not the Chinese people. Lai acknowledged that his responses did not explicitly mention stopping the National Security Law, but emphasized that the overall intent was to prevent its implementation.

The defense also presented a conversation between Lai and Sam Cheung, in which Cheung referred to comments made by Sang Pu on the D100 show “Major Situations,” suggesting the US would implement sanctions. Lai responded that he believed this to be true but felt the measures would not significantly deter China, expressing a hope for more stringent sanctions. Lai explained that the sanctions mentioned were not severe enough to act as a deterrent to the National Security Law, believing they were insufficient to prevent its passage.

12:53 Lunch 

12: 40 Lai served as group chairman before the National Security Law; “hoped to take on corporate responsibility”

The defense showed the Apple Daily’s A3 page from May 25, 2020, related to Lai’s previous testimony that he became the executive chairman of the group that month, asking if this action was due to the impending implementation of the National Security Law. Lai confirmed and mentioned his desire to assume the responsibility for the entire company.

When asked if his intention to take full responsibility for the company was related to the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign, Lai responded that it was related to subsequent events, “With the imminent National Security Law, the work of the media becomes very dangerous. As I mentioned, as a boss, I should take full responsibility to face that danger.”

Further questioned about his knowledge of the content of the National Security Law at that time, Lai agreed that he did not know. Asked why he said “the job of media becomes very dangerous,” Lai explained, “We knew it was going to be very draconian and damaging. And you know, it’s going to harm freedom of speech.”

12: 30 Lai says many opposed the “One Hongkonger, One Letter” campaign; he continued because “I’m the boss”

The defense displayed the front page of Apple Daily from May 24, 2020, featuring the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign. Lai stated that at the time, he hoped to prevent the implementation of the National Security Law because it would harm Hong Kong. On the same day, Chan Pui-man sent Lai a screenshot of Joshua Wong’s Facebook post, which criticized the campaign for not adhering to bipartisan standards and overly appealing to Trump to save Hong Kong, calling it embarrassing and doubtful of how U.S. Democratic congress members would feel about it.

Lai responded to Chan, saying, “What he says doesn’t matter. That’s a very difficult view of looking at the US and the matter at hand. I don’t agree with him, whatever we can secure to help us we must use now. I know a lot of people don’t agree with this including Martin, but now is a time of crisis we can’t pretend to be careful and clever. The only way is to be brave! There’s no other way to deal with the CCP now.”

The defense quoted Wong’s view that there’s “really no reason to ask another country’s president to Save HK”; Lai disagreed. Lai stated in court that he knew many disagreed with the action, like Martin Lee, but one must not pretend to be cautious and only bravery could confront the CCP, and that it was necessary to take all measures to stop the National Security Law.

When asked if he still truly believed in his stance despite Wong and Lee’s disagreement, Lai confirmed and noted that Chan Pui-man and Cheung Kim-hung also disagreed with the action. When asked how he proceeded with the campaign, Lai said, “because I was the boss.” He indicated that the campaign was likely proposed to him by a colleague, probably Cheung Chi-wai, the director of Apple Daily’s animated news platform.

12:09 Lai Cites Chan Pui-man’s Suggestion, Mentioning Sanction List on Twitter

The defense displayed a picture message sent to Jimmy Lai by Chan Pui-man on May 23, 2020, featuring a statement from “Hong Kong’s National People’s Congress and CPPCC in support of establishing the National Security Law – RTHK.” Chan then messaged, “Traitors selling out Hong Kong, sanction list?” to which Lai replied, “I see. Good suggestion.” Chan added, “The picture and the statement by Henry Tang disgusted many Hong Kong people.” Lai responded, “I’ve already put them on my Twitter: should US government put these people on the sanction list?” The defense also displayed a Twitter post from Lai on the same day that read, “should US government put them on the sanction list? #Magnitsky Act.”

The court saw a dialogue between Lai and Simon Lee, where Lai attached a relevant picture showing someone holding a banner that read “Support national security legislation, safeguard ‘one country, two systems’,” signed by “Members of the National Committee of the CPPCC Hong Kong.” In court, Lai stated that he considered Chan Pui-man’s suggestion a good one, so he forwarded it to Simon Lee to post on Twitter.

The defense asked why Lai queried in his post whether “the US government should put these people on the sanction list?” Lai stated it was because of Chan’s suggestion, which he agreed with, as these individuals supported undermining Hong Kong’s freedoms. The defense then inquired if Lai knew the contents of the National Security Law in May 2020. Lai said he was unclear on the details but was aware from news reports that the law would override the Basic Law and the rule of law, a notion commonly discussed among the pan-democrats.

Regarding the tag “#Magnitsky Act” added to the post, Lai said Simon Lee added it. Lai noted he did not have a detailed understanding of the Act at the time, only that it was related to sanctions. He also did not notice this tag, as he generally does not pay attention to such details.

As for a voice message Lai sent to Chan the following day, “Pui-man, my new Twitter account is quite a sensation. Could you possibly provide daily ideas based on the news, maybe send me a tweet or a sentence each day, would that be okay?” The defense questioned whether Lai had previously asked Chan to supply information. Lai indicated he likely did, emphasizing his need to post on Twitter frequently but lacking the time to gather information himself.

11:05 On the Day of His First Twitter Post, Lai Instructed Cheung Kim-hung to Launch the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” Campaign

The defense pointed out that on May 22, 2020—the day Jimmy Lai published his first Twitter post—he instructed Cheung Kim-hung to launch the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign. According to WhatsApp messages, Lai told Cheung:

“Please consider having Apple Daily initiate the ‘One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong’ campaign. We will print envelopes for the campaign to be distributed on Sunday or Monday, with each newspaper containing ten envelopes. The day before, Apple Daily’s front-page advertisement will serve as a preview.”

Regarding a message Lai sent to Mark Simon, which he then forwarded to Cheung:
“Mark, there’s no airmail to US. If by ordinary mail it takes a month so we can use normal letters. Simon Lee advises to use twitter tagged to Trump. All readers have to do is to take a photo of the letter either from our newspaper or our online and sign his or her name and send to us. We will forward it to Trump’s Twitter account, or Facebook and White House pleading column.”

The defense asked why Lai mentioned “T.” Lai said he didn’t know and didn’t ask Mark Simon who “T” was, believing it was just a misunderstanding since there was no one named “T” among Apple Daily staff. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had copied and pasted when sending the message to Cheung. Lai said it was possible.

The defense pointed out that, according to Andy Li’s testimony, “T” was the Telegram username of Chan Tsz-wah. They asked if the “T” in the message referred to Chan. Lai said it did not, as Simon Lee did not know Chan.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked why Lai thought “T” was not Chan. Lai reiterated that the two could not have known each other, adding that Simon Lee was relatively distant and not involved in matters between him and Chan. He only learned in court that Chan was referred to as “T.” Lai also stated that he did not know about SWHK (Stand With Hong Kong) at the time and had not discussed it with Simon Lee. Judge Remedios further questioned whether Chan and Simon Lee could have known each other through someone else. Lai said no, emphasizing that he was close to Simon Lee and would have sensed it if he knew Chan, reaffirming that the “T” in the message was just a typo.

The defense then asked whether there was a connection between Lai’s first Twitter post on the same day and his instruction to Cheung Kim-hung to launch the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign. Lai said there was no connection, and even if there was, he could not recall his thoughts at the time.

10:45 Lai Confirms Twitter Account Launched Before National Security Law to “Let the World Know What’s Going to Happen in HK”

During the court session on May 21, 2020, Lai sent a link to a report about the imminent implementation of the National Security Law to Chan Tsz Wah, commenting “It’s coming!” When asked why he said this, Lai mentioned it was because the National Security Law was about to be enforced. The defense noted that the article did not specify the contents of the National Security Law, to which Lai expressed his fear of the law due to its severe measures.

On May 22, 2020, Lai made his first Twitter post, which he says was unrelated to his comment “It’s coming!” The defense showed a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and his “apprentice” Simon Lee, where Lai wrote, “This is a good time to start a Twitter account to let the world be aware of what is going to happen to HK from now on.”

When asked why he thought it was a good time to start a Twitter account, Lai replied that he wanted to inform the world about the upcoming events in Hong Kong. The defense queried further, noting that the National Security Law was implemented in June 2020, questioning his urgency. Lai responded that the law’s implementation was certain by then, which prompted him to start the Twitter account.

Lai told Simon Lee, “National Security Law about to be imposed on HK over and above our Basic Law,” implying that the National Security Law would supersede the existing system. Lai mentioned “CCP’s total disregard of our rule of law,” explaining that he believed the National Security Law would override the Basic Law and the rule of law. Regarding a message that mentioned “MB,” Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios repeatedly asked what “MB” was, to which Lai said he did not know. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai had copied the message to Simon Lee; Lai did not remember but thought “MB” was likely a footnote.

In a message that read “In response to this newfangled illegal National Security Act Hong Kong version,” Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if “newfangled” was a word used by Lai. Lai stated he sometimes used the term to describe something new and trendy. Judge Esther Toh questioned why “MB” was included if the message was written by him. Lai did not know but emphasized that he fully understood the content of the message, hence he was the author.

10:30 Lai Clarifies That His Article Mentioned ‘China’s Economic Collapse’, Unrelated to the ‘Support Explosion’ Proposed by Lau

Earlier in court, an article published in the Washington Post on September 30, 2019, titled “There’s Hope for Freedom, Even in China,” was discussed. The article stated, “If China’s economy implodes, so does the regime’s legitimacy. Even if communist China doesn’t fall, Xi Jinping’s empire will.” Judge Remedios inquired whether Lai’s article suggested that China would collapse following an economic implosion. Lai explained that since the Communist Party is focused on economic development, its legitimacy would crumble if the economy did, for which Xi Jinping would be responsible. Lai reiterated that the article was merely his prediction.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further inquired about Lai’s previous testimony regarding Lau’s mention of ‘support explosion’ during their meeting, which Lai claimed he had never heard of before. Lai clarified that he had never come across the term ‘support explosion’, explaining that ‘support’ was an old derogatory term for China, and ‘support explosion’ was Lau’s prediction, unrelated to what he mentioned in the article about China’s economy imploding. Judge Esther Toh questioned the court translator, who agreed that ‘support explosion’ should be translated directly since ‘support’ is a derogatory term for China no longer in use. Judge Esther Toh then asked Lai to confirm that he had not heard ‘support explosion’, not that he was unfamiliar with ‘China implosion’. Lai confirmed, therefore he did not understand the term when Lau mentioned it.

The defense also presented an article by Lai published in the New York Times on May 29, 2020, titled “Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security?” The article quoted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement that Hong Kong could no longer be considered to have significant autonomy from mainland China, a condition for maintaining the city’s special trade status with the United States. It noted, “These measures stem from direct impulse, but some of their consequences must be carefully considered.”

In court, Lai explained that the measures would diminish Hong Kong’s value, which is a global trade hub, making it more susceptible to Chinese interference. Here, value refers to monetary worth, as Hong Kong is considered a treasure by China. Lai’s article also stated, “I hope, for example, that the US government does not completely lift Hong Kong’s privileged economic status,” which Lai emphasized was his sincere hope at the time of writing.

10:20 Lai Clarifies That Hong Kong Fights Not for the US, But Shares the Same Values with the US

In court, a segment from Lai’s May 2020 interview on Taiwan’s “Yahoo TV Netizens Ask” was replayed. Responding to the host via phone, Lai humorously remarked, “We really want the CIA, I really want the US to influence us, I want the UK to influence us, I want foreign influence because their support is the only thing that can sustain us, foreign power is what we desperately need now.”

The defense noted that Lai was laughing when he responded. In court, Lai humorously stated that this was not true. The defense mentioned that Lai had previously addressed rumors of US influence on Hong Kong protests. They also referred to an interview conducted with Lai by the police on September 1, 2020, after his arrest, where they showed him a report from Wenhui Newspaper dated October 15, 2019, titled “Fat Lai Admits ‘Fighting for America’, Politicians Criticize Selling Out Hong Kong and Damaging the Country.”

The article claimed that during an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Lai said that Hong Kong people developed “the same values as the West” during British rule, such as the rule of law, free markets, and property rights, which are “absent in China.” It suggested that China was trying to take away Hong Kong’s “freedom,” describing this as “the first battle of a new Cold War between the US and China,” indirectly admitting that Hong Kong’s anti-government incidents were “fighting for America,” and “we must resist, or we will be left with nothing.”

When asked if the Hong Kong protests were really for America, Lai denied this, emphasizing that the protests were for Hong Kong itself, to resist Chinese encroachments on their freedoms, not for the US. He stressed that while Hong Kong shares values with the US, it does not mean Hong Kong is fighuting for the US.

The article also quoted the chairman of the Economic Democracy Union, Lu Weiguo, saying, “Since the handover, the central and SAR governments have steadfastly upheld ‘one country, two systems,’ and all freedoms and rights have been protected. Lai’s comments are utterly false; he is blatantly speaking for his American ‘masters.'” When asked if Lai was speaking for America or if America was his ‘master,’ Lai denied it, stressing that the alignment with US values was purely ideological, not indicative of any actual ties with the US.

10:15 Lai Describes Hong Kong as Fighting for the Same Values as the United States In an earlier court session, it was mentioned that Jimmy Lai had a discussion in July 2019 with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). A segment was played in court where Lai said, “Hong Kong is fighting a war of the same values as you. It means that we’re fighting your war in your enemy camp…which is fighting the same war you have with China.”

Lai clarified in court that “we” refers to Hongkongers and protesters, and “war” meant that the current “Cold War” is a conflict over values. Hongkongers share the same values as the U.S., and resisting China’s infringement on freedom signifies that Hong Kong and the U.S. are engaged in the same battle.

The defense mentioned that retired U.S. General Jack Keane and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz were also present during the talk. They asked Lai if he discussed using nuclear weapons against China with them after the interview. Lai reiterated that “nuclear weapons” were a metaphor, symbolizing the values of the United States.

10: 10 Court Session Begins

The Witness