Jimmy Lai appeared in court for the 17th time Friday as his trial continued at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, acting as the High Court. Lai is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” and other crimes under Hong Kong’s National Security Law. The trial marked its 109th day.

During Friday’s proceedings, the defense presented records of Lai’s conversations, including a message from his assistant, Mark Simon, sent on July 28, 2020. Simon wrote that then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other State Department officials preferred not to mention Lai’s name too often, citing concerns it could harm him or put him at a disadvantage. Simon also referenced Lai’s views in a New York Times article about a “war over values” were beginning to take shape.

Lai responded by thanking Simon for his support, advising him not to worry. “They won’t act against me now,” Lai wrote, adding that authorities were likely trying to show the business and international communities that the National Security Law had not undermined freedom or the rule of law. He also noted the strong international response to the law, saying, “They know they have made a big mistake.”

The case is being heard by High Court judges designated under the National Security Law: Esther Toh, Susana D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee.

The prosecution team includes Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan. Lai is represented by senior barrister Robert Pang, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand Queen’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed transcription

10:04 Court in Session

Fung Wai-kwong (known by the pen name “Lo Fung”), the English edition’s Editor-in-Chief and lead editorial writer, has been observing the trial from another courtroom for several days. Inside the defendant’s dock, there are three Correctional Services officers. Fung is dressed in a dark navy blazer, a maroon shirt, light blue trousers, and wearing black-rimmed glasses. Occasionally resting his chin in his hand, he remains focused on the monitor in front of him.

10:10 Defense Displays Messages between Jimmy Lai and Albert Ho

The defense team presented a conversation between Jimmy Lai and former Democratic Party Chairman Albert Ho from July 27, 2020. During this conversation, Ho sent Lai a link with a Simplified Chinese comment: “Finally, a clear-headed article about decoupling.” Ho added, “Straightforward yet tactful, a rare and valuable piece of advice.” Lai replied:

“Brother Yan, you are right, ‘straightforward yet tactful, a rare piece of advice!’ But firstly, Xi and the like with their wolf-warrior mentality won’t listen.

Secondly, trust between the US and China has completely eroded, it’s difficult to revert to the old relationship; it waits for China to compromise while the US will maintain a firm and uncompromising stance. As Pompeo said, ‘If we don’t change China today, dictatorial China will change us, and the US no longer has room to back down.’ Third, his examples of Japan and Germany are slightly off, as they are allies of the US whereas China is a competitor—a very different national security consideration. The US and its allies will inevitably press on because Xi’s wolf-warrior style brings dreadful associations to the free world, and China’s decline seems unstoppable.”

Lai noted that he was merely analyzing the article sent by Ho and providing his own opinions, clarifying that “the US will maintain a firm and uncompromising stance” reflected President Trump’s attitude at the time, and “the pursuit” against China does not imply military warfare.

10:15 Lai Again Denies Offering Suggestions for Pompeo’s Speech

The defense presented a Signal conversation from July 28 between Jimmy Lai and Mark Simon, in which Mark Simon forwarded a message:

“My colleague Miles Yu suggested that I could reach Jimmy Lai through you.

Last October, I attended a conversation my Hoover Institution colleague Peter Robinson hosted with Mr. Lai. At the conclusion of the conversation, Peter asked what the United States could do to assist the cause of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. Mr. Lai replied that Hong Kong did not need tanks or tariffs on China. Hong Kong, he said, needed the United States to stop being embarrassed about its own principles…”

Mark Simon added, “Mary is the one who wrote Pompeo’s speech at the Nixon Center, but she admits it was such a big speech that there were many people who provided input.” and “The above note is from Peter Berkowitz who is the head of policy planning at the State Department.”

When asked if he was familiar with Peter Berkowitz, Lai said he was not. Regarding the message that Pompeo’s assistant Mary mentioned many people provided input for the speech, the defense asked if Lai had participated in giving any suggestions. Lai denied having done so.

10:20 Message Indicates Concerns for Lai’s Safety

The defense continued by quoting a subsequent message from Mark Simon:

“The point he’s making, and the point the Secretary wanted to make, without mentioning your name too much as they don’t think that would be good for you, is that the original points that you made in your New York Times piece about this being a war of values, is something that is now taking hold. They like to keep everything private as they don’t want be accused of getting anyone in trouble. They are very worried about your safety.”

To which Lai replied: 

Thanks for their support. Please ask them not to worry. They won’t do anything to me now. They want to prove to the business community and the international community that National Security Law has calmed down the city, but has no effect on people’s freedom or damage to the rule of law. They know they’ve made a big mistake from the international community’s strong reaction to it, and the business people who are preparing to move their businesses from HK, and their intention to emigrate.

10:25 Lai: Thought China Would Be Cautious, Merely Wishful Thinking

The defense displayed an article by Lai from July 2019 in the New York Times titled “What the Hong Kong Protests Are Really About.” Lai confirmed that the article mentioned a “values war.” The defense asked if Lai was aware that Pompeo’s speech incorporated views from his article. Lai responded that he might have missed that detail and was unaware of it. He has no recollection of the message and would have only glanced over it if he read it. Lai also denied ever sending the article to Pompeo’s assistant, Mary Kissel, emphasizing that they had ceased contact once she started working in Washington.

Regarding his response at the time, Lai stated he misjudged the situation, hence his reply. He believed China would act cautiously considering international reactions and thought they might reduce the impact of the National Security Law, but admitted it was merely wishful thinking. The defense noted that Lai was arrested by the police 12 days later.

10:40 Lai Claims He Merely Expressed Agreement with Trump’s Sanctions: “How Could I Encourage Trump?”

The defense displayed a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Simon Lee, in which Lai messaged, “This I’m sure is only a tip of the iceberg. Overwhelming sanctions against those oppressors of freedom will spread through ranks. Bravo! President Trump!” along with an English article from Apple Daily stating, “US bank cancels account of Hong Kong senior office-holder Bernard Chan.”

The defense noted that Lai described the sanctions as “overwhelming” and exclaimed “Bravo,” questioning whether Lai intended to direct Lee to post related content on his Twitter account. Lai agreed he did but suggested Lee should have used more cautious wording. Ultimately, no related post was found.

The defense asked if Lai’s message meant to praise the sanctions against oppressors like Bernard Chan. Lai confirmed his approval. Further asked if such content on Twitter would advocate sanctions against oppressors, Lai denied, stating it was merely personal conjecture, affirming his agreement with Trump’s actions at the time. When asked if uploading the content would encourage Trump to further sanction, Lai retorted, “Encourage Trump? How could I encourage Trump?” but agreed he did “Cheer what he did.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interrupted, noting that such questions should be resolved by the court. The defense then moved on to other areas of questioning.

11:00 Program Claims Arrest of 4 Under National Security Law Intimidates; Lai: “I’m Just Stating Facts”

During the defense’s examination of the July 30th episode of “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai,” with guests including former editor-in-chief of the South China Morning Post Mark Clifford and former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, Raymond Burghardt, Lai mentioned, 

“So they are now using the pandemic as an excuse, which is not excuse because, during the pandemic, quite a lot of countries still go on, you know, their elections. Well, I think the reason why they want to postpone is because the primary has been so successful, the pro-Chinese camp is a bit worried, you know because people are really quite agitated by the National Security Law…But since last night, they arrest four young people of subversion or secession crime, which is the National Security Law crime, which definitely will have a great intimidation effect on people here”

The defense asked whether the 2020 Legislative Council election was canceled or postponed. Lai said he did not remember; it was his conjecture, and the defense added that the election was postponed that year. Lai, responding to further questioning, stated that his comments were his analysis, denying any intent to incite hatred towards the Central and Hong Kong governments. He described his statement as conjecture and noted that his conjecture ultimately came true.

Lai also stated in the program, “China is not ready for war, its military is so much inferior to the US, first, and second it is in a bi-situations, both economically and socially.”

Asked whether he intended to incite hatred towards the Central and Hong Kong governments, Lai said he was merely stating facts, analyzing the situation and military capabilities of the two countries.

Regarding Lai’s assertion that the West should collectively oppose China, the defense asked if he intended to incite hatred towards the Central government. Lai reiterated he was stating facts. Asked if he had intentions to incite hostility towards China, Lai said he was analyzing trends, which had already occurred.

Lai mentioned “dialling back” in the program, and the defense asked if he meant “effectively reducing dictatorship”? Lai agreed, specifying that the “dictatorship” he referred to was the Chinese Communist Party. Asked if he intended to incite hatred towards the Central government, Lai denied it, stating he was merely stating facts.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai was closely following international news in July 2020 and the international community’s reaction to the situation in Hong Kong. Lai agreed, noting that various countries criticized the National Security Law. The defense asked if the international opposition to the Chinese Communist Party was a form of hostility. Lai stated he was merely stating facts.

The defense asked about his mention of Bank of America canceling the account of Hong Kong senior official Bernard Chan, asking if he was calling for sanctions. Lai stated he was merely stating facts. He also denied intending to call for people to change the political structure illegally or to disobey the law.

Judge Esther Toh asked about Lai mentioning on the program that the arrest of four young people had a “very great intimidation effect on Hongkongers”; Benny Tai being dismissed by HKU had a “very great intimidation effect on academia.” Lai stated he was stating facts, “It would be a threat to the rest, and intimidation to the rest.”

Toh asked if Lai mentioned why the four young people were arrested. Lai said he assumed the audience would read the news, reiterating he had no intention of inciting hatred. The defense asked what the four young people were arrested for. Lai said he did not remember.

11:30 Break

12:11 Lai Says Criteria for Show Guests Include Belief in Free Market, Not Necessarily Familiarity with China

In court discussions revolving around the arrest of four young individuals mentioned in Lai’s program, the defense displayed a tweet by Lai from the same day stating, “China is purportedly the 2nd most powerful nation in the world. What can four school-age youngsters do to overthrow such a superpower? Either #CCP is trying to fake its strength or the regime has only one trick up its sleeve, that is rule by terror.” 

Lai testified that he does not remember who these young individuals were, and regarding the phrase “rule by terror,” he indicated that he might say the same thing but does not recall advising Simon Lee about this tweet.

Further discussions highlighted a conversation between Lai and Mark Simon where Simon mentioned, “For upcoming shows we will get people like Perry Links, Steve Yates, Mike Gorzales, Peter Mattis, Chris Balding. All these people are first-rate and also good on camera.” Lai responded positively but noted the need to start looking for replacements, acknowledging the rotational nature of guest appearances on the show.

When questioned about the list provided by Simon, Lai acknowledged knowing Mike Gorzales as a friend but had forgotten Steve Yates and did not recall Peter Mattis and Chris Balding. He mentioned that the criteria for ‘first-rate’ applies in terms of academic and knowledge levels. When asked about the criteria for selecting show guests, Lai responded that guests should provide strong opinions relevant to the discussion topics, which might include issues on China, Europe, and more.

The defense queried whether Lai specifically sought guests with certain political backgrounds or stances. Lai emphasized that he primarily looked for individuals who believe in the free market. Regarding familiarity with China, Lai noted that many of his guests might not be well-acquainted with China but could be knowledgeable about Taiwan and the U.S., understanding trade and economic issues. He mentioned that one of the guests on the July 30 program was Raymond Burghardt, a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, who had worked in Taiwan as a U.S. ambassador and had experience working in Beijing when he was younger.

Lai also discussed the possibility of guests rotating if the program continued long-term, although this became unfeasible as he was arrested shortly after, limiting the number of episodes produced.

12:30 Lai Unaware of Simon Lee’s Retweets, Yet Acknowledges Responsibility

During the trial, the defense presented a tweet from July 30, 2020, where Lai had retweeted a post by Benedict Rogers of Hong Kong Watch, originally shared by Alvin Lum about the disqualification of Civic Party members including Alvin Yeung, Dennis Kwok, and others. Lai had retweeted with the comment: “So the disqualifications start even as #HongKong government considers postponing Legislative Council elections. Total disenfranchisement. Total outrageous. @DominicRaab it is time to add #CarrieLam and #HK and #China officials to the #Magnitskysanctions list.”

 The defense asked if Lai was aware of the DQ (disqualification) incident at that time. Lai said he knew, as it was major news. Asked if he paid attention to whom his Twitter account followed, Lai said he did not, as Simon Lee managed it. The defense noted that Lai’s Twitter followed 53 accounts, including SWHK, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), Taiwan’s then-President Tsai Ing-wen, retired U.S. General Jack Keane, and Wall Street Journal editor Bill McGurn.

The defense asked if Simon Lee knew Lai had personal ties with Jack Keane and Bill McGurn. Lai said he believed so. Out of curiosity, Judge Esther Toh asked if most guests Lai invited on the “Live Chat” program were American. Lai said most were. Toh followed up, asking if they were mostly Republicans or Democrats. Lai said mostly Republicans. Toh then asked if Lai preferred Republicans. Lai stated they shared common values, such as the free market.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios noted that Lai had retweeted Rogers’ post calling for Carrie Lam, Hong Kong, and Chinese officials to be placed on the Magnitsky sanctions list. Lai reiterated that Simon Lee was responsible for the retweet and that he had not paid attention at the time, but he would still take responsibility. When Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked Lai what his intent was, Lai said he did not know.

The defense asked if Lai wanted to call for sanctions. Lai denied it. The defense asked if the UK had a Magnitsky Act. Lai said Rogers mentioned it in the post. The defense pointed out that Lai allowed Simon Lee to retweet it on Twitter. Lai said that by retweeting, he must acknowledge agreement. Pressed further, Lai said that, to some extent, yes, he agreed with the post.

Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai agreed with Rogers’ claim that Carrie Lam, Hong Kong, and Chinese officials should be placed under Magnitsky sanctions. Lai emphasized that he was unaware at the time that Rogers’ post had been retweeted, “but it does not excuse me from taking responsibility.”

The defense asked again if Lai intended, via the retweet, to call for sanctions. Lai said he had not noticed. The defense demanded a yes or no answer. Lai replied, “no.” The defense then asked what Lai meant by taking responsibility. Lai said, “Because whatever Simon does on my behalf, I have to take responsibility.” The defense asked what kind of responsibility. Lai replied, “Any responsibility.”

The defense mentioned that Lai personally faced a “collusion with foreign forces” charge (already filed in court) for allegedly requesting foreign sanctions against the HKSAR or China via Twitter. Lai pleaded not guilty. If Lai said he must take responsibility, why did he plead not guilty? Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interrupted, asking if the defense was cross-examining. Esther Toh also noted that this involved legal opinions and Legal Professional Privilege (LPP), prompting the defense to drop the question.

When the defense began another question with “Do you suggest…,” Toh interrupted, stating it was a leading question. Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios joked, “leading counsel, haha.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang suggested the defense ask, “If Lai was not aware of the retweet, why does he say he must take responsibility?” The defense responded that this would turn into cross-examination.

12:45 Lai: Disagrees with some tweets retweeted by Simon Lee but will take responsibility for Lee’s actions

 The defense further asked if Lai had authorized Simon Lee to commit crimes on his behalf. Lai denied it. When asked why he said he would take responsibility regardless, Lai stated he would be responsible for Lee’s actions, including possible mistakes and oversights. The defense queried if Lai thought Lee had erred in this particular retweet. Lai agreed. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had expressed disagreement with Simon Lee’s retweeting of the tweets. Lai said no, he had not noticed at the time and only became aware of this tweet now. Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai knew who Dominic Raab was, to which Lai responded he did not. Judge Esther Toh followed up, asking if Lai claimed to understand current world events. Lai said he had never heard of Raab. The defense noted that he was a former Deputy Prime Minister of the UK.

The defense further inquired if Lai was familiar with international affairs. Lai agreed but specified not with British affairs but with those of the USA, noting his awareness of the US president and some congressmen. The defense asked how the UK and USA differ. Lai replied that the USA supported Hong Kong’s freedom movement more and showed greater concern for Hong Kong’s issues than the UK, demonstrating more significant support.

The defense mentioned, what about Benedict Rogers and Hong Kong Watch? Lai acknowledged knowing that Rogers and Hong Kong Watch support Hong Kong, helping to keep it in the public eye. The defense then asked if Lai had noticed whether Rogers and Hong Kong Watch had lobbied in the UK. Lai questioned whom they were lobbying for. The defense clarified, the overall UK government action? Lai believed they had, citing Rogers’ familiarity with the UK government and many politicians like Lord Alton and former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten, lobbying to support Hong Kong.

12:54 Lunch

14:33 Defense Cites Twitter Post in Questioning
Lai says he believed the content about U.S. sanctions reported by Apple Daily wouldn’t occur in the short term. 

The defense displayed a message from August 1, 2020, between Lai and Benedict Rogers, which stated: “Dear Jimmy: I have not contacted you, deliberately. But don’t think I have forgotten you. If you would like to speak anytime, please let me know. I will sleep now but am available over the weekend if you would like to speak. With my prayers, Ben.”

Lai responded: “I was actually thinking about you all of a sudden quiet down. Good you’re still around. Keep it up pal. Call me anytime you like. Cheers. Jimmy.”

When asked about the meaning of “Keep it up pal,” Lai explained it as telling the other person to take care of themselves, and he believed he ultimately did not call Rogers nor had a verbal conversation with him.

Three days later, Lai’s Twitter account posted: “I don’t see this happening yet. China is not Iran. And the US still has strong business ties with it. China also has dialed back its belligerent rhetoric recently, looking for a compromise. But a compromise before the election won’t come either.”

The tweet linked to an Apple Daily news piece titled “Welcome to Iran: Chinese banks should prepare for SWIFT exit as US sanctions loom.”

The defense further cited a message between Lai and Simon Lee, mentioning a related message Lai had sent Lee a week prior. The defense questioned if Lai believed that the news-related event wouldn’t happen in the short term. Lai confirmed. Asked about the long term, Lai stated he was only responding to the news and expressed disagreement. When asked why he held this view, Lai noted it was based on what he read in the news, and the election mentioned in the tweet referred to the presidential election.

15:00 Lai Denies Discussing the Primary with Chan Tsz-wah, Calls Chan’s Testimony Fabricated

In reference to the August 6 “Live Chat” program featuring Raymond Burghardt, former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, Lai mentioned on the show:
 “A lot of things happened last week because the postponement of the elections, the September elections and the DQ…well we didn’t expect that CCP would have something to move around this election. Because, you know, they’re afraid of losing in September. If they lost in September, they will lose the control of Legco which could be detrimental for them.”

The defense asked if Lai knew the official reason for delaying the Legislative Council election. Lai said it was due to the pandemic. The defense pressed why Lai did not mention the pandemic reason on the show. Lai explained he did not take the government’s explanation seriously.

Regarding Lai’s statement on the show that “if we can get 35+ you know we can stop any bill and which also is a claim that we have to use to arouse the people to pay attention to how important (it is) of taking the Legco over 35 seats,” the defense asked how Lai knew that gaining over 35 seats could block bills. Lai responded that this idea was widely known and mentioned in the news.

The defense then cited testimony from co-defendant Chan Tsz-wah, who claimed Lai discussed the primary elections with him at a meeting in late December 2019. Asked if he had discussed the primary with Chan at that time, Lai said it was still very early in the process, and he had no reason to bring up the primaries with Chan. Lai added that he had not even discussed primaries with the pan-democrats then, and he believes Chan’s testimony to be fabricated.

15:15 Lai Denies Calling for Hostile Actions Against China by Foreign Countries

In court, further dialogue from the program was presented, where Lai mentioned, “Well, definitely this will have CCP to boost the next nationalistic sentiment in China… even with the TikTok thing, you know, which has already aroused a lot of nationalistic sentiment in China… the national security law has actually kicked off a unity of the international free world countries opposing China… So in such an alliance as I just said, you know the countries feel that they don’t have the leverage against China.”

When asked about the “unity of the international free world countries opposing China,” Lai explained that foreign countries condemn China, specifically for implementing the National Security Law in Hong Kong. The defense further asked if the foreign condemnation was a hostile action against China. Lai responded that he was merely listing facts at the time and denied requesting any hostile actions against China by foreign countries.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired about the “alliance” countries Lai referred to in the program. Lai clarified that these countries also oppose China’s implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong, not suggesting that they have an official alliance, as far as he knows. When asked what Lai meant by “free world,” he indicated Western countries and others like Japan, referring to democratic nations.

15:30 Lai Says He Asked Yeung Wai-hong to Edit Articles

During the court session, the defense showed a message from Jimmy Lai to former president of Next Magazine, Yeung Wai-hong, dated August 7:

“President, heartfelt thanks! Jimmy

A single stone stirs up a thousand waves, creating a red sea of waves that divides the US and China. The world is full of unexpected turns! How could the CCP have anticipated that a single strike from its ‘wolf warriors’ in pushing the National Security Law in Hong Kong would have such disastrous consequences! It’s uncertain whether it’s fate or coincidence that at a time when US-China relations were at a breaking point, Xi Jinping, with a wolf warrior move, launched the Hong Kong version of the nuclear bomb of the National Security Law. The ideological differences between the East and West, the CCP’s wolf warrior diplomacy, and its arbitrary commercial behaviors are increasingly unbearable, leading to tense relations between China and the free world countries. Followed by the US, as the big brother, initiating a trade war to change the CCP’s arbitrary behaviors…”

Lai indicated that after writing the article, he sent it to Yeung for feedback and editing.

The defense cited that Lai planned to publish this article in his column “A Laugh in Success and Failure.” The text mentioned, “Today, Pompeo has launched the ‘Clean Network’ initiative to eliminate TikTok, WeChat, China Telecom, Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, China Mobile, and other network platforms and cloud services. This so-called ‘Clean Network’ purge will not only target network platforms and cloud services but will comprehensively block technology transfers, products, and tech information exchanges. This blockade, initiated by the US, will inevitably include all countries of the free world.” The defense asked if the “blockade” referred to internal US measures? Lai agreed. The defense further inquired if it applied to other countries. Lai indicated that other countries were likely discussing this issue, primarily following the US’s lead, with at least other countries already following the US in blocking technology aimed at China, as the chips used in Europe are partly derived from US technology, hence following the US blockade.

The article continued, “This ‘tech blockade alliance’ is a critical strike to China’s economy. Without Western tech exchanges, Chinese tech will stagnate. Technology progresses through continuous interaction, inspiration, imitation, and competition. Without external tech knowledge interactions, inspiring success stories and imitations, there lacks the competitive pressure for progress, and Chinese tech will stagnate.” The defense asked if there was a formal alliance at the time? Lai said no, involving countries like the UK, Germany, and other European nations.

The defense then asked if Lai had suggested to Yeung Wai-hong that they advocate for a tech blockade against China? Lai stated he was merely explaining what was happening at the time. The defense inquired if the “alliance” affected China’s tech development? Lai agreed. The defense further asked if Lai wished for such an event? Lai said he was only analyzing if technology and knowledge were barred from entering China, China would lose Western technology and must develop its own.

The article mentioned, “Fortunately, the decoupling of technology does not mean the decoupling of trade with Western countries.” The defense asked if Lai hoped for “the decoupling of trade with Western countries”? Lai reiterated that technology is just one aspect of trade.

Regarding the article mentioning “In the past few days, US Secretary of State Pompeo at the Nixon Library claimed that the current Chinese leaders, especially Xi Jinping, ‘truly believe in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology’ aiming for ‘global communist dominance,’ thus ‘the previous blind engagement paradigm is no longer viable.'” The defense also showed a headline from the Apple Daily on July 25 titled “Pompeo at the Nixon Library declares 50 years of policy towards China a failure; America calls on the free world to conquer the new tyranny.” The defense cited that some of the words in the report appeared in Lai’s article. Lai believed he had read the report, integrating it into the article.

Regarding the August 4 headline from Apple Daily “US initiates Clean Network action to block Chinese telecoms, Alibaba, Tencent,” the defense mentioned that Lai thought the ‘Clean Network’ action was not limited to the US. How did Lai know this? Lai indicated it was hard to remember, but naturally, when the US blocks, other countries would follow. The defense then showed a message from Yeung Wai-hong to Lai, who had sent back the edited article. Lai responded, “Wow! That was fast! Thank you, thank you.”

16:00 Lai: Journalists Could Be Jailed Under National Security Law

During the court session, the defense displayed a WhatsApp message from August 7, where Jimmy Lai mentioned, “Simon, Are you in HK? I want to have another dinner with the contributor before we terminate the relationship. Thanks, Jimmy.” Simon replied, “I am still stranded in the US. I am in touch with Sang Pu, and he is now in Taiwan. He asked me to tell you he would be in touch with Fung Hei-qin (馮睎乾) later.”

Lai explained that he did not know Simon Lee’s whereabouts at the time, and the “dinner” referred to the authors who contributed tweets for the Apple Forum, including Yeung Ching-kee. Due to the termination of their working relationship, he planned to give each contributor ten thousand dollars and have dinner with them as a token of appreciation.

Regarding Simon Lee’s contact with Sang Pu, Lai mentioned that he had dinner with Sang Pu before and later learned that Sang Pu, who advocated for Hong Kong independence, was banned from writing for Apple. Lai considered Simon’s remarks casual, as he had no contact with Sang Pu. The defense asked if Sang Pu was one of the contributors. Lai denied this.

The defense noted that Simon Lee later mentioned Sang Pu asked him to convey that he would meet with Fung Hei-qin (馮睎乾). Lai was unsure why Sang Pu wanted Simon Lee to relay this message, but mentioned that Fung Hei-qin (馮睎乾) was his favorite writer, believing he had been writing for Apple until its closure, and was in Taiwan at the time. Lai dismissed this message, as he did not find it significant.

The defense showed a tweet from Lai on August 7, stating, “Press freedom has been under threat, and even journalists might be imprisoned soon. Despite all these foreign journalists still want to get visas to come to work in HK. It shows how much our journalists treasure freedom of speech” 

Lai explained that under the National Security Law, journalists could be imprisoned for their reporting. The defense asked if Lai had specified any particular charges. Lai agreed that he had not.

On the same day, another tweet by Lai linked to an Apple Daily article “Hong Kong to retain ‘King of IPO’ crown despite Trump ending special status,” stating, “President @realDonaldTrump is telling the truth. Only those who are blinded by power or money can’t see that. Without the rule of law, #HK will no longer be a global financial center.” 

The defense asked if Lai thought maintaining Hong Kong’s status as the ‘King of IPO’ was a good thing. Lai agreed, clarifying in his tweet that if Hong Kong ceased to be a global financial hub, it would no longer hold the ‘King of IPO’ title. The defense asked what he meant by “President Trump is telling the truth.” Lai referred to Trump’s executive order that mentioned ending Hong Kong’s special status.

16:18 Court Adjourns 

The Witness