Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” among other charges, attended the 108th day of his trial on Thursday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court). The defense presented a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and his “apprentice” Simon Lee from July 21, 2020, in which Lai referred to China as “just a paper tiger” and commented on the corruption and combat ineffectiveness of the Chinese military against the U.S. Lai confirmed that this content was posted on his Twitter, emphasizing his opposition to a “hot war.”

Another post stated “young people are the backbone of our freedom movement,” to which Judge Esther Toh asked what Lai meant by “freedom.” Lai replied it meant “freedom from China’s encroachments, freedom from dictatorship.” Toh inquired if this implied he wanted Hong Kong independence, which Lai denied, expressing his desire for the rule of law in Hong Kong, emphasizing “freedom under the rule of law.” Toh further asked what he defined as the “freedom movement,” to which Lai described it as “resisting China’s encroaching on Hong Kong’s freedom.”

The case is presided over by National Security Law-designated judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution team includes Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum; while 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.

16:32 Court Adjourns

16:05 Lai Agrees with Pompeo that World Must Focus on CCP’s Human Rights Violations

During the trial, the defense presented a tweet from Jimmy Lai dated July 27, which stated, “@SecPompeo is right. the world should pay more attention to CCP’s violation of human rights. To ignore its human rights violation is to the peril of our world in future. Chinese activist Zhang Wuzhou tortured in police custody, says family.” 

Lai was asked by the defense why he agreed with Pompeo. He responded that Pompeo was correct in stating that there needs to be more attention on the CCP’s human rights violations and noted that his call was not just for the U.S. but for the entire world.

When asked how to pay attention to these violations, Lai mentioned that it involves awareness and censure, implying non-acceptance of such actions. Further pressed on how to censure, Lai said he was unsure, as the methods would typically be handled by the Foreign Ministry.

Additionally, Lai recalled commenting on Pompeo’s speech and mentioning three dissidents, including Nathan Law and Wei Jingsheng, with Wei having been imprisoned for 15 years before escaping.

15:47 Lai Agrees Article Criticizes CCP’s Lack of Integrity, Reiterates It Was Merely Stating Facts

During the trial on July 26, 2020, the defense questioned Jimmy Lai about another column titled “A Boomerang…Self-Stabbing the Heart,” discussing:

“Actually, I hadn’t thought before how huge a disaster ruining Hong Kong would be, nor could I have imagined that the National Security Law would tear up the Basic Law, this international covenant, blatantly insulting international civilized values and ethics, sparking an international backlash.”

When asked whether Lai intended to call for an international backlash or sanctions against China through the article, he denied it, stating it was merely a prediction. Lai mentioned that some sanctions were already in place at the time, not due to the National Security Law but because of the trade war.

Regarding the article’s content, which says:

“The reasonable approach would of course be to return to the legal path, adhering to the principle that any law conflicting with the Basic Law is invalid. For example, Articles 4 and 20 of the National Security Law allow peaceful demonstrations and even the distribution of flyers advocating for the division of the country, which is permitted. However, actions aiming to directly disrupt the administration of the HKSAR or the institutions of the People’s Republic of China, thereby splitting the country and undermining national unity, even if such actions do not involve force, such as hacking into computers, are criminal offenses. I hope to provide clear examples to explain to the world how the National Security Law has muddled the legal provisions of the Basic Law.”

When the defense questioned what he meant by “the reasonable approach would of course be to return to the legal path,” Lai said, “I was just explaining the possibility of redemption for Hong Kong,” hoping people would understand the “big problems” that would occur after the CCP implemented the National Security Law.

The Defense sked if he was making suggestions in the article, Lai noted that the red lines under the National Security Law are very vague and confuse the Basic Law, hence his examples aimed to clarify where these lines are drawn. When the defense pointed out his intent to “explain clearly to the world,” Lai responded that no one but the regime could truly provide examples.

The next section of the article questioned:

“However, is this still useful now? Will the international community still believe in the sincerity of the CCP to keep its promises? When has the CCP ever adhered to its contractual commitments?”

When asked if he was implying the CCP lacks integrity, Lai agreed. Asked if by describing the CCP as lacking integrity, he was inciting hatred towards it, Lai denied this, reiterating that he was merely stating facts.

Lai agreed that his examples referred to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Basic Law, acknowledging that the CCP does not adhere to these. Asked if his article incited citizens not to pursue changes to the political structure through legal means or to disobey the law, Lai denied it.

15:29 Break

15:10 Lai Praises Pompeo’s Speech, Speculates Connection with Friend and Pompeo Assistant Mary Kissel

During the trial, the defense displayed a WhatsApp conversation between Jimmy Lai and the former president of Next Magazine, Yeung Wai-hong, discussing a link to a speech. Lai commented, “Thank you so much for the translation. Yes, it is a very powerful speech. This speech seems to have kicked off the new Cold War with China. Bravo!” He added, “Mary Kissel should have something to do with it. So proud of our friend.”

Yeung responded, “Indeed. We here in HK are blessed to have her devoted friend. You helped build that friendship like nobody has.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping inquired whether Lai implied Mary Kissel was involved with Pompeo’s speech. Lai explained that he was speculating since Kissel was a key assistant to Pompeo, suggesting her possible involvement. Lai noted that he had known Kissel for over 10 years since her time as a journalist in Hong Kong, and they became friends before she moved to New York.

Upon further questioning, Lai confirmed that Kissel later became Pompeo’s assistant during Trump’s presidency. When asked about the exact timeline, Lai could not recall the specific dates but mentioned that Kissel was already Pompeo’s assistant when he met Pompeo in July 2019, and they ceased contact once she entered government service.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked about the sudden halt in their communication, to which Lai replied that he had lost Kissel’s contact details and was unaware she had entered Washington until his visit. He mentioned that prior to her government role, they communicated via The Wall Street Journal’s email.

The defense also asked if Kissel was waiting outside during his visit to the U.S. in July 2019, as was Mark Simon. Lai was unsure but recalled that Kissel had escorted him to the office, and Mark Simon had cautioned him not to embrace Kissel.

14:32 Lai Denies Advocating Hostility Towards China in Tweets Quoting Pompeo

During the examination of Jimmy Lai’s Twitter posts, the defense displayed a WhatsApp message between Lai and his assistant, Simon Lee, from July 24, 2020. Lai mentioned, “Please use his speech in Twitter and my comment above,” referring to a speech by then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Lai described the context as the onset of a “Cold War,” but he denied advocating for it, stating he was merely presenting facts. When asked if he wanted a Cold War between the U.S. and China, Lai responded incredulously, “Do I want a Cold War? How could I want that? I cannot want a Cold War.”

The defense also showcased a tweet from the same day: “This kind of engagement we have been pursuing has not brought the kind of change in China that President Nixon hoped to induce. our policies and those of other free nations resurrected China’s failing economy only to see Beijing bite the international hands that fed it.”

Another tweet stated, “Bravo! Well said. The free world must triumph over this tyranny. If we bend our knee our children will be at the mercy of the #ChineseCommunistParty. If the free world doesn’t change Communist China, Communist China will change us.”

Lai confirmed that both tweets were derived from Pompeo’s speech at the “Communist China and the Free World’s Future” event held at the Nixon Library in California on July 23.

During the playback of Pompeo’s speech in court, he said, “We know too that if our companies invest in China, they may wittingly or unwittingly support the Communist Party’s gross human rights violations.” He added, “Our Departments of Treasury and Commerce have thus sanctioned and blacklisted Chinese leaders and entities that are harming and abusing the most basic rights for people all across the world.”

When asked if he believed Pompeo’s speech advocated for hostile actions against China, Lai agreed. However, when questioned whether he was promoting hostility by instructing Simon Lee to use the speech, Lai clarified that he did not use that part of the speech, focusing only on the segment discussing “tyranny.”

The defense noted that Lai had linked to the speech in a tweet, asking if he was indirectly advocating for hostile actions against China. Lai denied this and mentioned he did not watch the linked content at the time.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned if Lai had directed Simon Lee to use the content of the speech. Lai admitted a possible miscommunication, saying he intended for Li to use his own commentary on Pompeo’s speech, not the speech itself. However, his message indicated otherwise, which he could not deny. Lai believed he had seen the complete version of the speech.

12:58 Lunch

12:35 Lai Confirms Receiving Email from Whiton, Describes It as ‘Lobbyist’ Work Mode

The defense quoted an email received by Jimmy Lai on July 24, forwarded by former State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton, titled “Fwd: EMBARGOES until 4:35 ET: Secretary Pompeo remarks at Nixon Library.” The defense noted that Whiton was no longer working at the White House at that time. Lai confirmed, explaining that Whiton was acting as a “lobbyist.” The defense further noted that then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had delivered a speech in California on July 23, and the email included Pompeo’s speech text.

When asked why Whiton would send this speech to Lai, Lai replied that it was typical of “lobbyist” work mode, noting that Whiton had previously introduced him to U.S. legislators in 2019. However, by the time the email was sent, Whiton was no longer assisting Lai. Lai believed that as a “lobbyist,” Whiton maintained contact with former clients, including himself.

The defense highlighted that the email’s recipients also included Mark Simon, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and retired U.S. General Jack Keane. Lai noted that Whiton knew Mark Simon, while the other two were friends of his. When asked if he had read the speech, Lai stated he was aware of it, possibly having read about it in the news or in the email, though he was not certain. Lai mentioned that he replied “Thanks” to the email in the morning but did not read it immediately and could not recall if he read it later.

The defense also asked if Lai had any role in preparing the speech. Lai denied involvement, asking rhetorically, “How could I be involved?” He also stated that he did not contribute directly to the speech. As for indirect contributions, Lai suggested that someone might have used content from his articles in The New York Times, but he was unaware and no one had sought his permission.

Lastly, the defense inquired if Lai had made any suggestions for the speech through Mary Kissel. Lai indicated that he did not, to his knowledge.

12:17 Lai Denies Posts Incite Hatred or Advocate Hostility

In response to Lai’s posts, the defense inquired whether he intended to incite hatred against the central government and the Hong Kong government through these posts. Lai denied these allegations, emphasizing that his posts only highlighted the perilous situation of young people and the lifeboat policy. He also refuted any intention to incite illegal actions to change Hong Kong’s political system or to encourage others to break the law, stating that even at its most extreme interpretation, the posts only suggested that young people might consider using the lifeboat policy when necessary.

Lai also denied any intention to advocate for the UK to take hostile actions against China and Hong Kong. Another post from July 23 presented by the defense stated, “The US should be lenient to the young #HKers seeking asylum. They suffered a lot fighting for #HongKong’s freedom.” This was aligned with a WhatsApp conversation Lai had with Lee, in which he sent a news link discussing the rise in inquiries about political asylum in the US following the National Security Law. Lai noted that he might have read the Chinese version of this report.

The defense pointed out that Lai’s message on WhatsApp was similar in content to his Twitter post, where he mentioned, “They suffered a lot fighting for #HongKong’s freedom.” They questioned whether Lai intentionally used the past tense, to which he explained that he was referring to past events, and by the time he wrote the post, the movements no longer existed as they occurred before the implementation of the National Security Law.

Regarding Lai’s ‘Livechat’ show, the defense displayed a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Mark Simon discussing the search for a co-host for the show. Lai confirmed that independent non-executive director Mark Clifford was a “guest host.” Lai clarified that “co-host” referred to a more permanent position, whereas “guest host” was more temporary.

The defense also mentioned that the prosecution had previously presented a chart of Lai’s “international contacts” in court. They asked if some of the individuals in the chart were Lai’s friends overseas and whether he had invited them to his show through Mark Simon. Lai confirmed this was the case.

11:32 Break

11:20 Apple Daily’s ‘One Country, Two Systems Coffin’ Imagery Alleged to Be Metaphorical, Lai Clarifies Lack of Consensus with Staff

During the trial, the defense showcased an A2 page from Apple Daily with a headline about the UK’s BNO visa facilitating family immigration, asking if the content represented a form of sanction. Jimmy Lai, responding for the first time, denied having read the details previously and stated that there was no consensus among Apple Daily’s senior staff about portraying an increased central control over Hong Kong residents. He mentioned, “They think their own way, I think my own way,” underscoring his policy of not directing editorial content.

The defense pointed to an image in the top left of the report labeled ‘One Country, Two Systems Coffin,’ which Lai described as metaphorical. Asked about his involvement in creating the imagery, Lai denied any involvement, questioning, “Why would I be involved?” He also denied any consensus with Apple Daily’s upper management about using the image, affirming his non-interference in their work.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired if all A2 pages carried this image, to which Lai replied that it appeared sometimes on A1 or A3, depending on the report. When asked if the imagery was intended to depict Xi Jinping in an unflattering manner, Lai clarified that it “does not portray a leader but just portrays the effect of the NSL (National Security Law).”

The image also included a ‘Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times’ banner, which the defense noted was considered subversive under the NSL. Lai responded that such terms, if used in reporting or photos, are not criminal, crediting legal advice given to colleagues for their boldness in using it. Asked if he was aware at the time that ‘Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times’ could be interpreted as advocating for Hong Kong’s secession from China, Lai said there was a consensus among staff to never mention ‘Hong Kong independence.’ 

When pressed if ‘Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times’ symbolized independence at that time, Lai admitted not paying attention to the meaning but only to its potential criminal implications. He agreed that arrests had been made for such expressions.

Asked what he would have done had he noticed the term, Lai responded, “I don’t think I would do anything. I didn’t do it because I leave my staff to judge their work,” illustrating his hands-off approach to editorial decisions.

11:10 Lai Denies Advocating for Young People to Leave Hong Kong

The defense inquired if Lai had discussed with Chan Tsz-wa during their meeting on June 16, 2020, the attack on Finn Lau in the UK. Lai added that he had responded to Chan by questioning Lau’s effectiveness as a leader. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang focused on Lai’s response to Chan mentioning Lau’s attack, asking if that was how he responded. Lai clarified that he first expressed his belief that Lau had genuinely been attacked, attributing it to tactics not characteristic of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Further, the defense questioned whether Lai and Lau discussed international strategies during their meeting in Taipei. Lai reiterated that his focus with Lau was on quelling frontline violence, noting that Lau stayed only briefly.

Later, around July 23, when discussing a Twitter post about the UK’s lifeboat policy, the defense asked Lai about his expectations for young people involved in movements. Lai said he was unsure, only wishing for them to have opportunities for asylum. The defense queried the relationship between the BNO visa scheme and Lai’s description of young people as the “backbone of our freedom movement.” Lai explained that while the movement might not continue, young people remain central, regardless.

He continued, “I think that could give them a safe haven OF leaving, to have a life of freedom elsewhere is a good thing.”

Asked why he thought young people needed to leave for a safe haven, Lai cited the lack of freedom under the National Security Law. Denying that his Twitter post advocated for Hong Kong youth to leave, Lai merely considered it an option for them to live freely in the UK.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired if Lai meant the young people should continue their freedom movement in the UK. Lai reiterated his belief that it was beneficial and necessary for them, allowing the choice to leave Hong Kong and live freely in the UK, despite the absence of ongoing movements. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned why Lai still referred to young people as the movement’s backbone if no movement existed. Lai conceded that he had hoped for continued resistance, acknowledging it was wishful thinking.

10:45 Judge asks what freedom is sought, Lai: Resisting China’s Encroachment on Hong Kong’s freedom, denies advocating independence

The defense presented a Twitter post from July 23rd, which Lai had linked to an Apple Daily article titled “Firms with Hong Kong ties face US sanctions, linked to human rights abuses in Xinjiang.” The post read, “The most effective way to prevent human rights violations is to hold people who do the heinous act personally accountable.” 

Lai stated that the post, which he or Simon Lee might have written, emphasized personal accountability for those violating human rights, and that the link was selected by Lee.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had sent a link to Simon Lee, to which Lai responded that he might have read a Chinese version of the article. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired if he had read the Chinese report but posted an English link on Twitter, which Lai confirmed, saying the reports were available in both languages.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further inquired if the link Lai sent to Lee was to the English report, and Lai mentioned that he typically read the print version of Apple Daily and might have asked his secretary Julie to find the English report to send to Lee.

Additionally, messages showed that on the same day, Lai sent Li a link to another Apple Daily article titled “UK launches lifeboat for Hongkongers with focus on younger generation with new BN(O) visa,” commenting, “This is urgent and necessary. Our young people are the backbone of our freedom movement. They’re in the most danger.”

Another Twitter post stated, “This is urgent and necessary. Our young people are the backbone of our freedom movement. They’re in the most danger. UK launches lifeboat for HongKongers with focus on younger generation with new BN(O) visa.”

When asked by the defense what he meant by “movement,” Lai referred to young people involved in protests or the movement. However, he noted that there were no protests due to the National Security Law.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned who the participants in the freedom movement were if they were not protesters. Lai was unsure how to define them, stating, “my thinking is the young people who join the freedom movement, are mostly demonstrators.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what Lai meant by “freedom,” to which he replied, “freedom from the encroachment of China on our freedom, freedom from dictatorship.”

Upon being asked if he was advocating for Hong Kong’s independence, Lai clarified, “I don’t want Hong Kong to be independent. I want Hong Kong to be under the rule of law.”

He further explained that the “freedom” he referred to was “freedom under the rule of law,” and defined the “freedom movement” as “resisting China’s encroachment on Hong Kong’s freedom.”

When asked if Finn Lau was a protester, Lai agreed, noting he participated in different ways. However, he contested a strict definition, stating it was unfair as Lau was deeply involved, implying Lau inspired participation in protests. Lai reaffirmed that Lau was part of the movement and noted that although Lau engaged in other activities, he was not aware of the specifics. He first learned of Lau through the media, not through Chan Tsz-wa, before knowing more about him when reports later indicated Lau joined international efforts.

10:30 Lai: I Take Responsibility for Twitter Posts, Mutual Understanding with Simon Lee

On July 23, 2020, in a WhatsApp conversation with Simon Lee, Jimmy Lai stated, “Trump is using a series of sanctions enacted against China and his campaign strategy. Very smart. While Biden can only say Action is louder than words!” Later, a similar sentiment appeared in Lai’s Twitter post: “Trump is taking actions through different measures while Biden can only claim, Action is louder than words!”

During the trial, when asked if his message was a call for sanctions, Lai denied it, explaining that he was merely stating what Trump was doing. Judge Alex Lee raised a question about how Simon Lee knew which messages were intended for Twitter without being specifically told. Lai confirmed that Simon Lee would decide independently without prior agreement, assuming mutual understanding.

Asked who was responsible for the Twitter content, Lai asserted it was his own responsibility, emphasizing his over a decade-long working relationship with Simon Lee, “I never questioned what he did. So I think that is a mutual understanding.”

Regarding his comment that Trump was “Very smart,” Lai explained that he believed Trump’s use of sanctions against China was a clever campaign strategy. When the defense pointed out that Biden won the election, Lai agreed. About the phrase “Action is louder than words,” Lai clarified that “louder” meant more effective.

10:10 Lai States He Does Not Support a “Hot War” and Does Not Believe China Can Fight the U.S.

Referring to the July 19, 2020 article “Time is a Weapon” from Lai’s “Success or Failure, Laugh it Off” column in Apple Daily, the defense asked if Lai intended through his writing to incite hatred against the central and Hong Kong governments, advocate changing the political structure outside legal channels, or encourage disobedience of the law. Lai denied all of these.

The defense then turned to Lai’s Twitter posts from July 2020. They presented a July 21, 2020 WhatsApp conversation between Lai and his “apprentice” Simon Lee, where Lai sent Lee an Apple Daily link and commented: “I don’t agree with Prof. Vogel that armed fights between China and the US are possible. No, the US military might is way too superior to China’s, besides China’s military is so corrupted and can’t fight. China is just a paper tiger, they won’t dare fight with the US.”

Lai said he did not know who “Prof. Vogel” was, only recalling that he had disagreed with some article. He confirmed that the content was posted on Twitter and reiterated that he did not support a “hot war.” In response to further questioning, Lai said he had heard of the Magnitsky Act but did not know the details.

Additionally, Judge Esther Toh inquired about another Twitter post, asking if Lai knew the UK suspended its extradition arrangements with Hong Kong in July 2020. Lai said he did not remember. The defense asked if Lai held a British passport, and Lai confirmed that he did.

The Witness