Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai, charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses, appeared Tuesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, which is serving as the High Court, for the 115th day of his trial. It marked the 23rd day of Lai’s testimony.

During his testimony, Lai addressed remarks he made in a 2020 interview in which he expressed hope for then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s reelection. Lai said in court that Trump’s hardline stance against China, including efforts to “decouple” the U.S. and China in various areas, led him to believe Trump’s reelection could create an opportunity to address Hong Kong’s National Security Law.

On Monday, the defense questioned Lai about a statement he made in an October 2020 interview, where he said, “Taiwan will become a very unique country.” Lai denied advocating for Taiwanese independence, stating that he was referring to Taiwan becoming a “stronger place” through its relationship with the United States. When pressed by the judge, Lai agreed that describing Taiwan as a “place” was a more appropriate choice of words.

The case is being heard by three judges appointed under the National Security Law: 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. Lai’s defense team consists of 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.

Detailed Transcription

10:06 Court Session Begins

10:15 Lai Agrees That He Advocated for Continued U.S.-China Decoupling

The defense continued questioning Jimmy Lai regarding his appearance on the “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai” program on October 22, 2020, and played a portion of the interview. The guest on the program was Jillian Melchior, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board. During the interview, Lai remarked on then-U.S. President Donald Trump:
“He actually achieved a lot even, you know, in foreign policy. Who has done what he has done in the Middle East. That’s a tremendous achievement.”

In court, Lai elaborated, explaining that he used the Middle East as an example, believing it was a tremendous achievement because peace had never been achieved in the region, and yet the Trump administration approached the issue from a unique perspective.

The defense then asked Lai to read excerpts from the interview transcript. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked the defense about the criteria for deciding when to play video clips versus having Lai read transcripts. The defense explained that they chose the most efficient method depending on the context.

Lai also commented on his hearing difficulties after being in detention for over four years, stating that he had trouble hearing parts of the interviews, including the ones played the previous day. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping reminded Lai to inform the court if he could not clearly understand something.

The defense focused on Lai’s statement during the program:
“Trump’s ways of dealing with China is the right approach, and I hope this approach will persist. So I hope Donald Trump will be re-elected.”

In court, Lai explained that he believed Trump’s approach was pragmatic, contrasting with other politicians who idealized issues. As a businessman, Trump approached matters with a business-like pragmatism.

When asked what specific actions he was referring to, Lai responded that Trump was “playing hardball,” meaning confronting reality and taking a firm stance. Judge D’Almada Remedios asked Lai to clarify the meaning of “confront.” Lai explained that Trump consistently confronted issues using his methods, such as pushing for decoupling between the U.S. and China in various areas, including technology. He highlighted Trump’s move to halt the supply of chips from the U.S. to China.

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for the U.S. to continue Trump’s actions. Lai agreed. When further questioned whether he supported the continuation of decoupling, Lai confirmed this position.

10:25 Lai: Trump’s Re-election Might Offer a Chance to Address the National Security Law Issue

The defense asked why Jimmy Lai hoped for Trump’s re-election. Lai explained that Trump had promised to take serious measures regarding Hong Kong issues, and he believed Trump would follow through on his promises, potentially addressing the National Security Law. Even though the law was already in effect at the time, Lai believed political situations could always be changed.

When asked what Trump had specifically promised to do for Hong Kong, Lai said he could not recall exact actions but emphasized that Trump had pledged to treat the matter seriously.

The defense then presented a Twitter post from the same day, where Lai retweeted an Apple Daily post with his comment:
“Parolin absolutely should stop trading with China. @CardJosephZen said, I hope the @Pontifex can see the real problem with the pact with #CCP.”

Lai stated that the post was not written by him but was likely written by his protégé, Simon Lee, who had decided on the wording independently. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked how Lai and Simon Lee coordinated their postings, noting that it seemed Lee could post on Lai’s behalf. Lai confirmed this arrangement.

The defense also showed a Twitter post from the following day, where Lai wrote:
“If government is about vision and attitude, @JoeBiden will win. If it is about results, @realDonaldTrump will.”

Lai confirmed that he wrote this post, explaining that by “results,” he meant Trump’s pragmatic approach, as Trump avoided idealizing issues. Lai believed Biden focused more on vision and attitude, a perception he formed after watching the presidential debate.

10:40 Lai’s Twitter Post Claims Biden’s Win Would Turn the U.S. into a “Shield of Hypocrisy”

The defense presented a Twitter post from October 24, 2020, stating:
“The way mainstream media covers up Hunter Biden scandal epitomizes what America will become, if Biden wins – a shield of hypocrisy, a country out of touch with reality.”

Lai testified that he did not write the post but acknowledged being aware of allegations that Hunter Biden used his father’s position for personal gain.

The defense cited messages from Cheung Kim-hung in the “English News” group:

Highlights of Taiwan Apple’s exclusive reports today:

1. [Exclusive] Hunter Biden’s Visit to Taiwan: Mysterious Facilitator Revealed—Secret Meeting with Financial Elite, Wu Dun-yi’s Daughter Represents Her Father
2. [Exclusive Investigation 2] Ties to Former Legislator Hsieh Kuo-liang—Digging Into Hunter Biden’s Facilitator, Lin Chun-liang
3. [Exclusive Investigation 3] Direct Links to CCP Top Leadership—Lin Chun-liang Helps Hunter Biden Attract Chinese Capital
4. [Exclusive Investigation 4] Yuan Jian-sheng Takes the Train to Confront Biden on Diplomacy—1983 National Archives Letter from Biden
5. [Exclusive Investigation 5] From Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping—Biden Father and Son Mocked as ‘China Cheerleaders.'”*

The defense asked if this scandal was reported in Taiwan Apple Daily. Lai confirmed that it was but noted that it was not covered by Hong Kong Apple Daily.

The defense then asked if Lai had suggested Simon Lee write the Twitter post. Lai responded that Simon Lee was already aware of the news, as it was a major story reported by other media outlets.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why the defense was questioning Lai about a post unrelated to Hong Kong. The defense explained that the matter involved Mark Simon, which would be addressed later.

10:45 Lai Confirms Posting Praise for Finn Lau’s Wisdom

The defense presented a Twitter post from the same day, where Lai wrote:
“I salute to @finnlau. At only 26, he has the wisdom knowing exactly when and what the right role to play. He inspired his peers in his former role and he’ll do it this time. The outside world support is very important.”

The post also included a link to an Apple Daily interview with Finn Lau. Lai confirmed that he wrote the post but noted that the age detail about Lau was likely added by Simon Lee. When asked why he suddenly wrote this post on that day, Lai explained that he had not read the full report but had read the headline, which prompted him to write the post.

Regarding another Twitter post on October 27, Lai wrote:
“Some friends accused me for supporting Trump in election is inference and it is not right. I apologize. But Trump’s dealing with China has been effective and it directly affects us here. I am just expressing our opinion so the world can see the bigger picture.”

Lai stated that the wording did not seem like his own and suggested that the post was not written by him.

The defense asked if friends had accused Lai of supporting Trump. Lai responded that he had faced frequent questioning from friends, though not from Simon Lee, who was aware of the criticism from others. Lai explained that these friends often openly criticized him, such as during meals or in written articles.

When asked what Trump had done to seriously address issues related to Hong Kong, Lai said he did not know specific actions. He recalled Trump’s statements about treating the matter seriously but noted that Trump ultimately lost the election.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang followed up, asking what Trump had done for Hong Kong in October 2020. Lai said he believed Trump had not done much aside from removing Hong Kong’s special status. When Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai thought this move was effective, Lai agreed, stating that it could directly impact Hong Kong by reducing the effectiveness of the National Security Law and shielding Hong Kong from its “scourge.”

The defense asked what Trump had done specifically regarding the National Security Law. Lai replied that Trump had not done anything. Judge D’Almada Remedios further asked if Lai hoped the law’s effects could be reduced. Lai said Trump could have negotiated with China to lessen the law’s impact. The defense asked if only the National People’s Congress could amend the law. Lai agreed.

When asked what Lai thought Trump could have done if re-elected, Lai said he could not speculate.

The defense also presented another Twitter post in which Lai wrote:
“#XJP’s Great Leap Forward 2.0 comes at a time #CCP destroyed HK’s #1C2S, which was the firewall for China to enjoy the fruits of free trade without opening up. The end of a free HK, means China either implode into autarky, or the authoritarian collapses.”

Lai stated that this post was likely written by Simon Lee.

11:00 Lai Confirms Statement on Losing Moral Authority if Violence Is Used

The defense presented the transcript of the October 29, 2020, episode of “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai,” featuring American priest Robert Sirico. When asked what Lai meant by saying “It’s very important to keep the world’s attention on us,” Lai explained that it referred to keeping the world focused on Hong Kong and maintaining international attention.

Regarding Lai’s response to Robert Sirico, where he said, “I think many times we have to persist,” Lai clarified that he believed at the time that the movement could still be sustained in different ways, though this was wishful thinking. When asked if he was referring to the pro-freedom movement, Lai agreed.

Sirico had remarked:
“The most dangerous thing to a totalitarian regime is freedom and the freedom of people. What I’m hoping will happen is that the witness of people like Jimmy Lai and the people on the streets in Hong Kong will be seen by the Chinese mainlanders, and they will be inspired themselves to rekindle the spirit of 1989.”

When asked how he interpreted Sirico’s comment, Lai said that “the people on the streets in Hong Kong” referred to protesters, and “the spirit of 1989” referred to the Tiananmen Square incident.

When Lai said during the program, “If we use violence, we will forfeit the moral authority we have,” the defense asked if he genuinely believed this. Lai affirmed, explaining that moral authority was the only thing they had.

Lai also stated during the program:
“The more I’m pinpointed, I think the more valuable I am. So the more pressure I have, the greater voice I should have.”

The defense asked what pressure Lai was referring to at the time. Lai responded that it was persecution, as there was growing attention on him. He added:
“I was arrested already, and I would be arrested again, and I would be imprisoned. I’m almost certain.”

Lai also addressed a question from the audience in Chinese, saying:
“Donald Trump will continue his policies to fight for Hong Kong’s interests against the mainland, and I think our subscriber numbers in Canada and the U.S. will increase.”

The court noted discrepancies between the Chinese statement and its English translation, leaving it to the court interpreter to provide an accurate translation.

11:20 Break

12:00 Mark Simon Alleged to Be Involved in Writing Hunter Biden Scandal Report; Lai Says He Was Unaware

The defense continued questioning Jimmy Lai regarding the “Live Chat” program, where a viewer asked: “Jimmy Lai, if Donald Trump no longer opposes the CCP, who would you support? What would be your long-term plan?”

Lai responded during the program:
“I think Donald Trump wants to resolve the fundamental problem of the fundamental difference between China and the free world… I can’t think of Donald Trump in any other circumstances or respect without thinking of him effectively dealing with the CCP.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “the fundamental difference between China and the free world.” Lai explained that it referred to differences in values, a problem that had not been resolved at the time.

The defense then presented three Twitter posts by Lai from October 30:

1. “I’m sorry Apple Daily was implicated by the NBC article. But Apple Daily has nothing to do with it. I’ve nothing to do with it. My assistant Mark Simon now informed us that he worked with the project, although had not commissioned it.”
2. “Mark used my private company’s money to reimburse for the research he requested. It’s only US$10,000 so he didn’t have to have my approval.”
3. “I was shocked when our reporter asked me for response to the NBC article. I know it is hard for anyone to believe that I didn’t know about it and my integrity is damaged.”

The defense asked about the relationship between these tweets and the NBC article. Lai explained that the NBC article alleged that Mark Simon was involved in writing about Hunter Biden’s scandal, but Lai emphasized he was unaware of this.

The defense interrupted, asking if Lai had read the NBC article. Lai said he had not and learned about it when Chan Pui-man came to his office to inform him of the situation.

When asked if Chan showed him the article, Lai said she did not, or perhaps she did, but he could not remember.

The defense inquired if Lai wrote the three tweets. Lai confirmed that he wrote them, sent them to Simon Lee for handling, and believed Lee added the relevant links.

12:18 Assistant Allegedly Involved in Writing Hunter Biden Scandal; Judge Questions Why Lai Did Not Issue a Statement Through Apple Daily

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping pointed out that the NBC article alleged Mark Simon used funds from Lai’s private company to cover research costs related to the scandal. Lai responded that the NBC reporter likely did not know the money came from him, and Mark Simon would not have disclosed the source of the funds.

The defense asked how Lai knew Simon had used money from his private company. Lai replied that Simon had informed him.

Lai explained that after Chan Pui-man told him about the matter, he felt the need to clarify and thus published his tweets. He reiterated that he had not read the NBC article, nor had he reviewed Apple Daily’s statement or noticed that Simon Lee had added Apple Daily’s statement to the tweets. Lai added that he later spoke with Mark Simon, during which he told Simon he would publicly deny involvement in the matter and assert that neither he nor Apple Daily was connected to the issue. Simon subsequently expressed his intention to resign as Lai’s assistant.

The defense asked why Lai spoke with Mark Simon. Lai said it was likely because Simon had seen Apple Daily’s statement and informed him of his involvement. When asked if Lai had paid for the research costs mentioned in the controversy, Lai denied it, stating he was unaware of the matter until Chan informed him.

Regarding Lai’s tweet mentioning that Simon “worked with the project,” Lai clarified that this meant Simon had not initiated the project. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked how Lai knew Simon was involved. Lai reiterated that Simon had told him.

Judge Toh asked if Lai had discussed issuing a clarifying statement with Chan. Lai said he had not taken the matter seriously and was unaware of Apple Daily’s statement. Toh questioned why Lai had posted three tweets on Twitter. Lai explained that he wanted to clarify the situation. Toh remarked, “So wouldn’t the best approach have been for Apple Daily to issue a statement that it had no involvement in the matter?” Lai reiterated that he was unaware of any such statement.

Toh pressed further: “You said you didn’t know, but wouldn’t it be the natural reaction to let someone issue a statement in your name saying, ‘We are not involved in this matter’?” Lai responded: “That would be natural, but I didn’t do it. I think the newspaper took it very seriously, and they handled it appropriately.”

Toh asked, “My question is, why? Why didn’t you do that?” Lai answered: “Maybe this was the way I thought was serious enough.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan had informed Lai before publishing the statement. Lai replied that he did not think she needed to, as Apple Daily operated independently.

When the court inquired about Lai’s understanding of the incident, Lai said that after Chan informed him, he told senior executives at an Apple Daily meeting that he was not involved in the matter. Later, Apple Daily issued a statement, and Lai believed Simon contacted him after seeing it.

12:39 Lai Says Mark Simon Incident Damaged His Integrity; Simon Indicated Resignation

The defense noted that the NBC article was likely published on October 29, 2020 (U.S. time), after which Chan Pui-man sent the article link to Jimmy Lai. Lai stated he could not recall whether he read the article but remembered Chan coming to his office to discuss the matter.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked what Chan had said at the time. Lai replied that Chan mentioned the news and that Apple Daily was accused of being involved in spreading fake news. Judge D’Almada Remedios further asked if the matter should have drawn Lai’s attention. Lai said he was concerned about issuing a clarification but did not treat the incident very seriously. He added that Chan may have urged him to clarify, as she would not have known about Mark Simon’s involvement. Later that afternoon, Lai attended a meeting and clarified to attendees that he had no connection to the matter.

Lai confirmed that after the meeting, he had a phone call with Mark Simon, which was later referenced in a Twitter post from Lai’s account. During the call, Simon informed Lai that he had used funds from Lai’s private company for the investigation. Lai stated that he was unaware of the details at the time but understood it was related to the Hunter Biden scandal in Taiwan. Simon also told Lai that he had not commissioned the project.

The defense referred to Lai’s Twitter post, where he expressed feeling “shocked” and said, “I know it is hard for anyone to believe that I didn’t know about this, and my integrity is damaged.”

When asked if Lai knew about the matter when Chan informed him, Lai said he did not. He acknowledged, however, that it would be difficult for people to believe he was uninvolved, which led to his feeling that his integrity had been damaged. Lai also mentioned that Mark Simon had indicated his intention to resign at the time.

12:59 Lunch

14:33 Lai Believed Assistant Was a Loyal Republican, Wanted Biden to Lose

The defense continued questioning Jimmy Lai regarding news about Hunter Biden and the allegations that Apple Daily was involved in fake news. Lai confirmed that three tweets were posted from his account to clarify the matter. After the posts, Mark Simon expressed his intention to resign and no longer serve as Lai’s assistant.

Lai added that he later contacted Simon through former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Lai believed Simon had calmed down and asked him to stay on. Ultimately, Simon did not resign.

The defense referenced testimony from “accomplice witness” Chan Tsz-wah, who stated that in November 2020, Simon told him he had hired a writer to produce news articles in Apple Daily about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China. The articles were later accused of being fabricated. Chan testified that Simon said the matter could be seen in the U.S. as election interference and might attract an FBI investigation, risking alienation from the Democratic Party. Simon reportedly told Chan that he had discussed the issue with Lai and decided to resign to protect Next Digital’s interests.

The defense asked Lai if Taiwan Apple Daily or Hong Kong Apple Daily had published any related reports. Lai stated they had not.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Simon explained why he was involved in the investigation. Lai said he had not. When asked about Simon’s motive, Lai suggested it was likely because Simon was a loyal Republican who wanted Biden to lose.

The defense noted that Lai’s tweets mentioned Simon by his full name. When asked if Lai informed Simon that his name would be disclosed in the tweets, Lai said Simon Lee likely made the decision to include Simon’s full name. Lai added that Simon’s initial intention to resign was likely to protect his reputation.

Judge D’Almada Remedios asked if Simon’s resignation was intended to distance himself from Apple Daily. Lai disagreed, saying he had already clarified the situation.

The defense pointed out that while NBC’s article did not mention Lai or Simon, it did reference Apple Daily. This led the public to assume that Apple Daily had commissioned the investigation. Lai confirmed this interpretation.

The defense asked why Lai felt it necessary to issue tweets clarifying the matter. Lai explained that it was because neither he nor Apple Daily had any involvement in the incident.

When asked why he publicly disclosed that Simon had used funds from Lai’s private company for the investigation, Lai replied that it was simply the truth.

14:50 Lai States that Simon Lee, Who Wrote His Tweets, Supports the U.S. Republican Party

Jimmy Lai’s Twitter account posted a tweet on November 2, shortly before the U.S. presidential election, predicting a “landslide victory” for Donald Trump. In court, Lai testified that he did not write the post, as he had already concluded after watching the presidential debates that Trump would lose the election.

Subsequently, two more tweets were posted from Lai’s account:

1. “Trump’s kept his promises. He’s made more than 300 judicial appointments, including 3 Supreme Court Justices, turned the activist courts back to originalism and protected the integrity of the judicial system.”
2. “Trump also reduced taxes, deregulated, made energy cheap, stimulated investment, created advantages for overseas companies to move back to the U.S., created jobs, thus accomplished the lowest unemployment and wages increase in decades. He’ll win landslide.”

Lai stated that he did not write either of these tweets.

The defense asked if Simon Lee, who managed Lai’s account and wrote many of the tweets, was a Trump supporter. Lai replied that Lee supported the Republican Party.

On November 3, U.S. Election Day, Lai’s account retweeted a post by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, which read:
“We strongly condemn the arrests of 8 pan-democratic Hong Kong politicians. This attempt to intimidate pro-democracy representatives is another example of the Hong Kong government’s complicity with the authoritarian CCP. We stand with the people of Hong Kong.”

Lai’s retweet included the comment:
“@Secretary Pompeo thank you for standing with and up for #HongKong.”

Lai testified that he did not write this tweet either.

15:15 Lai Admits He Knew and Agreed to Simon Lee Using His Twitter Account to Support Trump

On the same day, Lai’s Twitter account retweeted a post by Wall Street Journal editor Bill McGurn, adding the comment:
“@realDonaldTrump will win landslide.”

Lai testified that he did not write the post. The defense asked whether Simon Lee seemed to have used Lai’s account to support Trump during the presidential election. Lai confirmed that he was aware of it and supported the approach.

The defense then referenced the November 5 “Live Chat” episode following the election, featuring former Wall Street Journal columnist Claudia Rosett. During the interview, Lai said:
“The CCP is more concerned about Taiwan being upgraded to the international community than anything else. On that issue, I think Biden will have to compromise, especially if Biden mostly will use the team of the Obama team in this administration. And that will be disastrous.”

Lai explained that by “compromise,” he meant revisiting the elevation of Taiwan’s status, which he believed would result in disastrous consequences for Taiwan.

The defense asked if Lai advocated for the U.S. to continue elevating Taiwan’s status as a countermeasure against China. Lai denied advocating for countering China, instead saying he supported raising Taiwan’s status.

When asked if China welcomed Taiwan’s elevation, Lai replied that it did not. The defense further asked if Lai was promoting hostile actions against China. Lai denied this, stating he was focused on what would benefit Taiwan.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned whether Lai meant using Taiwan’s elevation as leverage. Lai reiterated that he believed elevating Taiwan’s status was important and had not considered it as a means to counter China. He added that the critical issue was that he believed the Biden administration might compromise with China and reverse Taiwan’s upgraded status.

15:30 Lai Denies Tweets Incited Hatred Toward President Xi Jinping

On November 6, Jimmy Lai’s Twitter account retweeted an Apple Daily post reporting that the Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF) announced its relocation from Hong Kong to Taiwan due to the implementation of the National Security Law. In the retweet, the account added:
“It is wise for @FNFGIHub to pick Taiwan, an open society, democratic government and safe. #CCP and #CarrieLam may also be happy to see the ‘troublemakers’ leaving. But it is bad news for Hong Kong people. The end of the #1C2S also ends HK as an international city.”

Lai testified that the post was likely written by Simon Lee, and he did not know about the organization. He believed the tweet referred to people avoiding the National Security Law and expressing support for Taiwan. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Lai agreed with this interpretation, and Lai affirmed.

In another tweet, Lai’s account retweeted an Apple Daily post that quoted Martin Lee, stating:
“As Martin points out, #CCP can’t face its own identity and legitimacy crisis and the ugly truth. CCP knew it’s not legitimate in #HongKong so they controlled the city with puppets and proxies. The end of the #1C2S means CCP cadres directly operate and take over Hong Kong.”

Lai stated that this post was also not written by him and was likely based on related news Simon Lee had read.

On November 10, another tweet from Lai’s account read:
“#XJP promotes vegetables as substitutes, and it reminds me of my time in the 50s China famine when vegetables were substitutes for staple food. Is famine coming back to China? Even if it is not, there will certainly be one coming if Xi continues to hold power.”

When asked by the defense what the tweet intended to convey, Lai explained that the news reminded him of his youth in China during a famine, when there was not enough rice or wheat to eat, and people resorted to eating only vegetables to stave off hunger.

The defense asked if Lai was inciting hatred toward President Xi Jinping through the tweet. Lai denied this, stating that the post referenced the policy of “state advances, people retreat” (國進民退), and that replacing private enterprises with state-owned enterprises could lead to famine.

15:35 Break

15:47 Tweet Claims “Hong Kong Suffocating in Silence”; Lai: Reflecting Fear Induced by National Security Law

The defense presented two tweets from Jimmy Lai’s Twitter account dated November 10, 2020:

1. “The DQ will likely trigger pan-Democrat legislation en masse.”
2. “HK’s in suffocating silence of no news. #CCP fears if the Democrats remain in the legislature, confronting bad bills, these news will again get the world’s attention. CCP wants no news so the world forgets #HongKong for good. That’s why they play such DQ trick.”

Lai confirmed that he authored the tweets. He explained that “Hong Kong suffocating in silence” referred to the lack of news in Hong Kong, and the posts were meant to express how the National Security Law had intimidated people into silence. 

When asked what he intended to convey with the tweets, Lai stated that he was illustrating the impact of the National Security Law. When pressed on whether he expected people to act on the message, Lai responded that he did not; he was merely stating facts.

The defense pointed out that the disqualification (DQ) of lawmakers itself was news. Lai agreed but argued that it also served to intimidate people into silence.

The defense then referred to the November 12 episode of “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai,” which featured Mark Clifford and former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Raymond Burghardt. During the discussion, Lai said:
“If they want to rape us, they can just rape us openly. Now we have to fight. Even if you know that fighting is useless, even if you know that fighting will not bring us victory. The fighting shows to the world our desire, our integrity for democracy, and our integrity of human dignity.”

The defense asked if “rape” was used as a metaphor. Lai agreed, explaining that “they” referred to the regime and “fighting” meant resisting oppression of freedom.

When asked what kind of fight he envisioned, Lai admitted it was difficult to imagine specific ways to fight given restrictions such as the ban on protests. He said his comment was more about making noise to draw attention.

The defense also questioned Lai about his remarks in the same program, where he anticipated that Biden and his administration would portray China as weak. Lai mentioned that the U.S. should sell more products to Taiwan and conduct military rehearsals to ensure Taiwan understood American support.

The defense asked if Lai advocated for the U.S. or other countries to use Taiwan as leverage against China. Lai denied advocating for this, emphasizing that his stance was about supporting and protecting Taiwan, not opposing China.

When asked if he encouraged the U.S. to conduct hostile actions against China or expected Taiwan to act jointly with the U.S. to counter China, Lai denied both accusations, reiterating that American actions were meant to support and safeguard Taiwan.

16:00 Lai Agrees That He Advocated for Foreign Alliances with Taiwan; Judge Questions How Taiwan, as a Non-Sovereign State, Could Join an Alliance

During the Live Chat with Jimmy Lai program, Raymond Burghardt remarked:
“The only thing is I think we’ve got good relations now with Australia, a good dialogue with Australia and with Japan and with India also on dealing with China on China issues. Let’s make Taiwan a very important part of that dialogue.”

Lai responded:
“This is a very good point. I think the Biden administration should make Taiwan one of those… how the squad is called quad, the one of the members of the quad, alliance.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for Taiwan to act alongside Australia, Japan, and India to counter China. Lai stated that he supported Taiwan joining the Quad. When further questioned if Lai supported forming an alliance to oppose China, he agreed but clarified that it was about protecting Taiwan, not confronting China.

The defense noted that Taiwan had not joined the Quad, to which Lai agreed, explaining that an alliance would strengthen the four countries and make Taiwan safer through the coalition. When asked about the nature of the safety, Lai referred to protection from “outside suppression,” which he defined as China.

Judge Esther Toh questioned how Taiwan could join the Quad when the other three members were sovereign nations. Lai replied it would involve forming an alliance. Toh pointed out that Taiwan is not a country, to which Lai admitted it was a wish. Judge Anthea Pang asked if Lai hoped Taiwan would become an independent country. Lai denied this, stating that changing Taiwan’s status was impossible, but Taiwan could still join the alliance as a non-sovereign entity.

Toh expressed skepticism:
“But how is that possible? Taiwan is part of China, it cannot be independent of China, yet you hope Taiwan will join this alliance with the other three countries to oppose China. That’s unreasonable, Mr. Lai.”

Lai responded:
“Because there is great opposition between China and Taiwan. You could say Taiwan is part of China, but that’s not Taiwan’s stance. Taiwan views China as a threat.”

Toh asked if Lai was saying Taiwan was independent. Lai clarified that Taiwan cannot be independent but could still receive more protection.

To illustrate her point, Toh provided an analogy:
“Imagine you have a child, and that child is not independent of you. Then the child goes to another set of parents and says, ‘Look, you’d better protect me against my father.’ How does that work?”

Lai replied:
“It’s feasible because the child does not recognize the father. While the child cannot adopt another father, that’s not what the child desires.”

The defense followed up, asking if Lai believed such a “quad relationship” was feasible for Taiwan. Lai affirmed, stating it could work with U.S. support.

The defense noted that the court would not be in session this Friday (November 10) and proposed that Lai read through the Slack records under the supervision of court staff and the legal representatives to expedite proceedings. Judge Esther Toh agreed to arrange for staff oversight. Judge Anthea Pang inquired if Lai could remember the relevant content, and the defense requested that Lai be allowed to take notes using pen and paper.

16:33 Court Adjourns

The Witness