Jimmy Lai’s trial is happening now. Follow the latest updates.

Show your support by using the hashtag #FreeJimmyLai

Day 122: January 21, 2025

The Witness: Live Updates | Jimmy Lai’s Trial Day 122: Lai Acknowledges Plan to Enlist James Cunningham in Pro-Democracy Lobbying Efforts in U.S.

Jimmy Lai, founder of Apple Daily, faced his 122nd day in court on Tuesday as his trial continued at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, temporarily serving as the High Court. The hearing marked Lai’s 30th day of testimony. He is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses under Hong Kong’s national security law.

The court reviewed a March 2019 Apple Daily front-page story about a meeting between then-U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and former Hong Kong Chief Secretary Anson Chan. Lai testified that before the report’s publication, he told Cheung Kim-hung, the paper’s then-CEO, that the meeting was “big news” and should be presented with “maximum effect.” When Judge Esther Toh inquired if this constituted an editorial directive, Lai acknowledged, “You could say so,” but emphasized that he was only highlighting the meeting’s significance.

The court also examined Lai’s discussions with Martin Lee and Lee Cheuk-yan, prominent figures in the pro-democracy movement, between March and May 2019. Lai confirmed the trio had deliberated on lobbying U.S. officials regarding Hong Kong’s contentious extradition bill. He said he suggested involving James Cunningham, a former U.S. consul general, to help organize a trip to the U.S. and facilitate dialogue with the Democrat-controlled Congress. When Judge Toh asked if the lobbying efforts aimed to prompt U.S. sanctions against Hong Kong, Lai said he was unaware of such intentions.

The case is being heard by High Court-designated national security judges Esther Toh, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee. The prosecution team is led by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, alongside Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai is represented by Senior Counsel 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

16:30 Court Adjourns

16:10 Lai Confirms Pompeo’s Aide Suggested Sanctioning Leaders’ Children

The prosecution presented a July 8, 2019, message from Mark Simon to Lai, which stated:

**“Dear Jimmy and Paul, Mary Kissel called, and she has two requests.

First, Mary is excited to see Jimmy, but protocol dictates there cannot be anything other than a handshake and a polite hello when we see her. There will be other people in the room, and she wants to keep it professional and not indicate what good friends you are.

Secondly, in terms of what you have an opportunity to ask Pompeo, she suggests to keep it as specific as possible. The Secretary is looking for insight on actions he can take specifically concerning Hong Kong. Mary counsels that he desires to learn how the US can help the movement. She said Pompeo doesn’t really talk grand scheme issues at these meetings. He is looking for actions he can undertake to help Hong Kong.”**

The prosecution asked if the “Paul” in the message referred to Paul Wolfowitz. Lai responded that he did not recall Paul Wolfowitz being involved in the U.S. trip.

The prosecution pointed to another part of the same message:

“Mary didn’t offer up any ideas as she said she doesn’t want to be inappropriate. But it was thought that the concept of sanctioning the children of CCP and Hong Kong leaders who crack down on the Hong Kong protesters could be merged into the same actions as are being proposed for the CCP officials who are cracking down on the Muslims out west.”

The prosecution asked if this was another suggestion from Mary Kissel. Lai agreed, acknowledging that she suggested raising the idea of sanctioning the children of CCP and Hong Kong leaders.

The prosecution then referenced Lai’s subsequent message to Mark Simon:

“Mark, Noted, I want to have more insights into the status of Berlin in the last Cold War. Paul probably has ideas about this. Is it possible to ask Paul to come to dinner tonight 20 minutes earlier?”

Lai confirmed that the “Paul” mentioned in this message referred to Paul Wolfowitz and noted that the dinner was arranged with Wolfowitz and James Cunningham. However, Lai reiterated that he could not recall Paul Wolfowitz being directly involved in the U.S. trip.

15:57 Lai Admits He Knew About Pompeo Meeting Arrangements Before Traveling to the U.S.

The prosecution presented a conversation between Lai and Mark Simon, showing that Lai was in Canada on July 3, 2019.

They also displayed a June 20, 2019, message in which Mark Simon said:

“Mary spoke with Paul, and she is working on Pompeo meeting.”

The prosecution asked if the “Mary” mentioned in the message referred to Pompeo’s assistant Mary Kissel. Lai replied that he did not know, explaining that Mary Kissel did not know Paul Wolfowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz was not involved in arranging the Pompeo meeting.

Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai had questioned Mark Simon about Mary’s identity at the time. Lai said he might have known who Mary was then but could not remember now. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios followed up, asking if Lai knew before arriving in the U.S. that he would meet Pompeo. Lai agreed but said he was only informed the day before the meeting.

Judge D’Almada Remedios pointed out that Lai had previously testified that the meeting with Pompeo was arranged only after his arrival in the U.S. and was not initially planned. Lai agreed and explained that he had forgotten about the earlier message but reiterated that he ultimately met with Pompeo.

The prosecution pressed further, asking if Lai had known before traveling to the U.S. that a meeting with Pompeo was being arranged. Judge Alex Lee clarified, asking if it was accurate to say Lai knew about the arrangements before leaving for the U.S. Lai agreed.

Lai also confirmed that he met John Bolton on July 10, a meeting reported by Apple Daily. Additionally, he confirmed that he had met both Pence and Pompeo.

The prosecution asked if Lai had met Pompeo on July 9. Lai said he could not remember but recalled that Mark Simon had warned him not to hug Mary Kissel in front of her boss.

15:34 Break

15:19 Lai States He Learned About Meetings With Pence and Pompeo Only After Arriving in the U.S.

The prosecution continued questioning Lai about his trip to the United States in July 2019. Lai confirmed that during this trip, he met then-U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor John Bolton. He also confirmed that, while he initially expected to meet with U.S. lawmakers to discuss the situation in Hong Kong, the meetings with Pence, Pompeo, and Bolton were arranged only after his arrival in the U.S.

The prosecution noted that before Lai’s U.S. visit, he had traveled to the United Kingdom and Canada. Lai confirmed this. The prosecution then presented a message from Benedict Rogers, the founder of the human rights organization Hong Kong Watch, mentioning Lai’s meeting with Rogers and Lord Alton. This message indicated that Lai was still in London on July 1, 2019. Lai acknowledged this.

15:15 Prosecution States James Cunningham Created a Group to Communicate With Lai and Martin Lee After Pompeo Met Lai

The prosecution presented a June 9, 2019, Apple Daily report titled “Pompeo Meets Jimmy Lai to Discuss Extradition Bill, which noted that Martin Lee was also present. Lai agreed with this detail.

The prosecution pointed out that the article’s final paragraph stated:

“At the time, the U.S. State Department issued a statement after the meeting, expressing Pompeo’s concerns about the Hong Kong government’s proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, criticizing the bill as a threat to Hong Kong’s rule of law.”

They asked if this matched James Cunningham’s earlier advice to Martin Lee, specifically, “Try to get Pompeo and Pelosi to provide readouts to the press about your meeting.” Lai agreed.

The prosecution noted that James Cunningham created a WhatsApp group on June 11, 2019, which included himself, Lai, Martin Lee, and Mark Simon. The group’s last recorded message was on July 9, 2020, after which Martin Lee left the group.

The prosecution also presented a message from James Cunningham:

“Sen Rubio and others who wrote to Lam earlier are going to rebut her response. And will submit legislation in effect amending the Hong Kong Policy Act to put more focus on certifying compliance with one country/two systems. Not sure that is a good idea at this point as it starts down a potentially dangerous road for HK.”

The prosecution asked if the Hong Kong Policy Act referenced in James Cunningham’s message was related to the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Lai responded that the message did not mention the human rights act specifically.

14:55 Lai Denies Directing Apple Daily to Advocate for Western Sanctions on Beijing

The prosecution cited Cheung Kim-hung’s testimony, claiming that between March and April 2019, Lai instructed Apple Daily management to use the platform to draw the attention of Western democratic countries, encouraging them to impose sanctions on Beijing and the Hong Kong government. Lai stated in court:

“That must be false, and I never was in the position to direct the Apple Daily to do this.”

Judge Esther Toh asked why Lai said he was not in a position to issue such directives to Apple Daily. Lai responded that he strictly adhered to editorial independence. When Judge Toh pressed further, asking whether Lai’s request for Cheung Kim-hung to “maximize” coverage of Anson Chan’s meeting with Pence was an editorial directive, Lai admitted that it was an exception.

The prosecution presented a message from James Cunningham, forwarded by Mark Simon to Lai:

“Mark, I have sent some thought to Martin on the meeting with Pompeo, which may not happen given his travels. Below is the main one. I subsequently advised him that P should not ask the amendment be withdrawn, a step too far. It is the HK and Int. business communities who have the leverage with Beijing.”

The prosecution asked if Lai was aware that James Cunningham had advised Martin Lee before Lee’s potential meeting with Pompeo. Lai confirmed, but added that to his recollection, Lee ultimately did not meet Pompeo.

The prosecution then presented additional advice from James Cunningham to Martin Lee:

“Try to get especially Pompeo and Pelosi to provide readouts to the press on your meeting. If they are willing to say the right things, you can then get their positions distributed.

Thank Pompeo for U.S. support for 1 Country/2 Systems in recent comments by Consul General Tong and the annual State Dept. report. The PRC committed to 1C2S with U.S. and international support but has been seeking slowly to strangle HK’s rule of law and freedom.”

Lai acknowledged that this was advice from James Cunningham for Martin Lee regarding a meeting with Pompeo and that Mark Simon was merely keeping him informed.

The prosecution argued that Mark Simon was informing Lai about how to lobby for U.S. support internationally. Lai disagreed, stating that the message did not mention this point. When the prosecution further claimed that Mark Simon was not only informing Lai but prompting him to act, Lai disagreed with this interpretation.

14:36 Prosecution: Was the U.S. Visit Intended to Push for Sanctions on Hong Kong Officials? Lai: I Was Only Informed

The prosecution presented a conversation from April 1, 2019, between Lai and Mark Simon. In the message, Lai said:

“Had a long meeting with Martin and Lee Cheuk-yan just now. Also spoke with Jim this morning. So moving along well and will try to have some congressional action in terms of legislation introduced before the end of April.”
 

The prosecution asked Lai what the meeting was about. Lai said he didn’t know. When asked if it related to the May visit to the U.S., Lai responded that he assumed so but was only basing his response on the WhatsApp content. The prosecution asked if the discussion involved raising concerns about the extradition bill. Lai stated that the WhatsApp message did not mention it.

The prosecution then presented a message Mark Simon forwarded to Lai the following day. It was a message from Lee Cheuk-yan to Minky:

“Dear Minky, Yesterday Martin, Mark, and I had a discussion on the way forward. This is a summary of our discussion, and we need more advice on the way forward.

We believed your suggestion for the week of May 13th is good timing since the HKSAR Government may want to bulldoze it into law before July.

With May 13th arrival in the U.S. in mind, the delegation may go to China first to have a meeting on Friday, May 10th, and have public meetings in Toronto on Saturday.”

The prosecution asked if Mark Simon was reporting the U.S. trip details to Lai. Lai responded that Mark Simon was merely informing him of what was happening.

The prosecution noted that the message also said, “I think you know also that James is also in the loop and I think you have also discussed with him.” They asked who “James” referred to. Lai replied that if it was referring to James Cunningham, they would use “Jim,” and since Lee Cheuk-yan wasn’t familiar with James Cunningham, he couldn’t guess.

The prosecution asked if the purpose of the U.S. visit was to push for amendments to U.S. law to sanction Hong Kong officials. Lai responded that he was informed about this purpose. When asked if Lai wanted James Cunningham to join the trip, Lai stated that this was not mentioned in the message.

Judge Alex Lee asked if Mark Simon was part of the delegation. Lai said he was not, clarifying that Mark participated in discussions because he introduced James Cunningham to the U.S. delegation. When asked if Mark Simon traveled with the delegation to the U.S., Lai said he did not.

12:53 Lunch

12:45 Lai Admitted to Voluntarily Paying James Cunningham but Denied Concealing It From Martin Lee

The prosecution presented a conversation from March 27, 2019, between Lai and Mark Simon, where Lai wrote:

“Mark, Because of the urgency of the fugitive law, after discussion with Martin whose group intends to go to DC as soon as April, we think we shouldn’t involve Jim this time. We won’t be able to give him enough time to work on this project, it’s not fair for him. They’re trying to have a Senate or Congress hearing on the law. Martin said it’s not difficult to arrange, you agree? You think Jim can pull off something like that in Congress? If so, he can still help.”

Lai also wrote:

“My take is that Martin doesn’t seem to want Jim involved in this project now. Maybe because they’ve let Minky take the lead and don’t want to undermine Minky’s role. Anyway, no harm in talking to Jim. He may be someone we can retain in DC for HK lobby considering the next two years will be a very turbulent time for HK/China relationship.”

The prosecution asked about Minky’s role. Lai explained that she introduced Martin Lee’s team to relevant parties in the U.S. When asked if this included members of Congress, Lai said he did not know.

The prosecution asked if Lai intended to retain James Cunningham to provide advice on lobbying efforts. Lai agreed. When asked if he meant to retain James Cunningham for two years, Lai denied it, clarifying that he only referred to the turbulent period.

The prosecution quoted another message from Mark Simon to Lai:

“One of the things that Jim has identified correctly over the last year has been the greatest threat to Hong Kong and Taiwan may not will be the Panda Huggers, but the defeatists, who conclude that Hong Kong and Taiwan are already gone. he made a very good point, and was not even thinking about business with us, in that it was important to always keep the business community involved and the legal community as once it becomes a human right issue that plays into the biases of the defeaters.”

The prosecution asked if James Cunningham was bundling human rights issues with the business and legal sectors. Lai disagreed, stating that James Cunningham had not suggested bundling but merely noted that turning it into a human rights issue could play into the biases of defeaters, making it an obstacle for Hong Kong.

When asked if James Cunningham suggested involving the business and legal communities to make it easier to gain their support, Lai said he wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing but was only informed.

Lai told Mark Simon in another message:

“When you see Martin, Please tell him that Jim volunteers to help, not that we hire him. so Martin can’t refuse his help. That’ll be good for his team’s trip to DC. Jim’s advice that we should focus on just the fugitive issue is a good area. They shouldn’t diversify into so many issues spreading their intensity too thin. Please tell Martin I wonder whether Jim can ask the Chamber of Commerce in the State to make a statement opposing the HK fugitive law. If that can  be done, that’d be very helpful for our resistance to the law.I will speak to Jim tomorrow and talk with Martin.” 

The prosecution asked if Lai believed James Cunningham’s involvement would benefit the trip to the U.S. Lai agreed that it would be effective.

When asked why Lai said James Cunningham was volunteering, Lai replied that it was a fact and reiterated that James Cunningham was not hired. The prosecution asked if Lai intended to conceal payment to James Cunningham from Martin Lee. Lai denied it.

The prosecution cited another message from Lai:

“Though I told Martin and Cheukyan Jim is volunteering we surely should pay him for his effort”

Lai clarified that James Cunningham was not hired but that he voluntarily decided to pay him for his efforts.

12:30 Judge Asks: Was the Pro-Democracy Camp Lobbying Congress About the Extradition Bill to Advocate for Sanctions? Lai: I Don’t Know

The prosecution presented a conversation between Lai and Lee Cheuk-yan from March 26, 2019, regarding the pro-democracy camp’s U.S. visit. Lee wrote:

“Today our group had a meeting and decided to postpone the trip to mid May. It seems not to make sense to have a trip just after Anson and reporting our position. Further we hope our trip has more added value and the idea is to ask some Senate or House Committee to hold a public hearing and inviting our Group to come. We will write to Minky to ask for her help. You mentioned about the involvement of James as a Project. May be he can advise on the possibility of a public hearing and also work with Minky on this? James To mentioned that Congressman Yoho is very supportive but of course we always have Nancy. Please advise on this new approach.”

Lai replied:

“Mid May is good. I discussed with Mark this morning about gathering Jim involved. He thinks it’s a good idea. Democrat controls Congress and with Jim’s involvement our fugitive law may have a chance to be raised in Congress, given Jim who’s a Democrat has good coherence and influence there. If he gets involved he needs two months to work out the connections and strategize the approach for you guys when you’re there. So Maybe good. Can you come on 29th dinner so we can discuss more in depth?”

The prosecution asked who “Minky” referred to. Lai explained that Minky was Martin Lee’s former assistant who was working in the U.S. at the time but not for the government. He believed she was arranging the trip for Lee.

When asked why Lee suggested Minky could work with James Cunningham, Lai stated it was Lee’s suggestion, and he did not know the reason. The prosecution asked if their collaboration was to establish connections in the U.S. for easier lobbying efforts. Lai reiterated that he did not know.

Judge Esther Toh asked if “Nancy” referred to Nancy Pelosi, then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Lai agreed. When the prosecution asked what Congressman Yoho was supportive of, Lai said it was the trip. The prosecution further asked if it was a lobbying trip, and Lai replied that it was a trip. Judge Toh asked if Yoho’s support referred to the idea of a public hearing. Lai responded that he did not know and could not speculate.

Regarding Lai’s message stating, “Democrats control Congress, and with Jim’s involvement, our fugitive law may have a chance to be raised in Congress,” the prosecution asked for clarification. Lai replied that the message was self-explanatory. When asked what the purpose of raising the issue in Congress was, Lai stated it was to discuss the extradition bill.

The prosecution asked if one purpose of the U.S. trip was to advocate for sanctions related to the extradition bill. Lai replied that this was not his idea and that he was not involved in the trip. The prosecution further questioned if the pro-democracy camp raised the extradition bill in Congress to lobby for sanctions against the Hong Kong government. Lai reiterated that this was the prosecution’s speculation, saying, “How would I know? How can I confirm your speculation?”

Judge Toh asked if the pro-democracy camp raising the extradition bill in Congress was intended to advocate for U.S. sanctions against Hong Kong. Lai stated that the message did not mention sanctions. When Judge Toh asked if Lai agreed with her interpretation, Lai said he did not know and could not agree. The prosecution then asked if Lai knew whether the pro-democracy camp had lobbied Congress in 2019 to impose sanctions on Hong Kong government officials related to the extradition bill. Lai replied that he did not know.

12:10 Lai Agreed on Seeking James Cunningham’s Assistance in Lobbying for the Pro-Democracy Camp

The prosecution questioned Lai about Martin Lee and the pro-democracy camp’s visit to the U.S. in May 2019. They presented a conversation between Lai and Martin Lee on March 26, 2019, in which Lai said:

**“Martin, On 29th dinner I think we should ask Audrey and Alan to join to discuss the fugitive law. What do you think? I just heard Tai is actually contacting them.

On another note I discussed with Mark about Jim’s involvement with your trip. He thinks since Congress is controlled by Democrats, he may be able to have the issue raised in Congress. Just that possibility is worth our effort to involve him…he can strategize and organize the issue with different parties for your trip there. Mark is going to discuss with him when he gets back to DC last week…Thanks. Jimmy

According to Mark, Jim needs two months to work on this project. So your going there in May is good timing. Thanks. Jimmy.”**

The prosecution asked if Lai wanted James Cunningham to participate in the pro-democracy camp’s U.S. visit. Lai agreed, stating that he thought James Cunningham could assist them.

The prosecution asked if James Cunningham was affiliated with the U.S. Democratic Party. Lai confirmed this.

When asked what Lai meant by “Jim needs two months to work on this project,” Lai explained that he was referring to James Cunningham’s ability to strategize and organize arrangements for the trip, which required two months of preparation.

The prosecution asked if Lai intended for James Cunningham to assist the pro-democracy camp with lobbying efforts. Lai agreed.

11:30 Break

11:15 Court Shows Martin Lee’s Messages to Lai About Lobbying in Washington

The prosecution presented messages from 2019 between Lai and Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the Democratic Party. In the messages, Lai wrote:

Yes! Now seems good time to lobby in Washington. The atmosphere is anti-China and pro-resistant forces. The hostility towards China in both parties is palpable.

In court, Lai explained that “both parties” referred to the U.S. Republican and Democratic parties. He said the “lobbying” referred to Anson Chan’s efforts, including her meeting with Pence and discussing the extradition bill issue. The prosecution asked if the goal was to attract U.S. attention. Lai agreed.

The prosecution continued by presenting further messages between Martin Lee and Lai:

  • Martin Lee:

    “Minky just sent an email, suggesting we should postpone our trip to mid-May. Our group will discuss and decide on Tuesday morning. Will let you know the result after the meeting. Thanks.”

  • Lai:


    “It may be too late for the fugitive law. OK. Wait for your news. Thanks.”

  • Martin Lee:


    “There will be further development in this matter. If good, no problem, for we can focus on the general situation. If bad, our visit will be much more important. For that will prove they have not pushed hard enough.”

  • Lai:

    “As long as they haven’t give up on the fugitive law, your trip is going to be important anyway. We must find public support to stop it before they push it harder.”

The prosecution asked why Lai said, “It may be too late for the fugitive law.” Lai responded that it was because the extradition bill issue needed urgent attention.

When the prosecution quoted Lai’s remark about “gaining public support,” they asked if Lai had already thought of lobbying in the U.S. by March 2019. Lai replied that the lobbying idea was not initiated by him but agreed that it was a reasonable course of action.

The prosecution further showed a message Lai sent to Martin Lee:

“Finally received feedback on [the] meeting Anson/Dennis/Charles had with Pence and then NSC staff.”

Lai noted that this information was sent to him by Mark Simon. The prosecution asked who provided the information. Lai said he could not recall but believed Mark Simon received the information from someone else, as Mark Simon would not have direct access to internal U.S. government information.

11:00 Apple Daily Headline on Pence Meeting Anson Chan: Lai Agreed to Maximize Impact of the Event

The prosecution presented evidence from March 23, 2019, showing Lai forwarding an Apple Daily article titled “Pence Meets Mrs. Chan: Concern Over Hong Kong Human Rights – Scholars: High-Level Reception Pressures Beijing” to Lee Wing-tat. The prosecution also questioned why James Cunningham had sent Lai details of his meeting with Anson Chan. Lai explained that he and James Cunningham were friends, and James Cunningham knew Lai was concerned about Hong Kong.

Judge Alex Lee highlighted a part of James Cunningham’s message mentioning, “There seems to be little or no ‘democratic’ cohesion, coherence, or plan,” and asked if it referred to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp. Lai said he did not know. The prosecution asked if Lai had forwarded James Cunningham’s message to others. Lai replied that he might have. The prosecution pointed out that Lai had shared the message with Martin Lee, Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, Cheung Kim-hung, and Chan Pui-man, which Lai confirmed.

After Lai forwarded James Cunningham’s report to Lee Wing-tat, Lee responded:

“We should gather forces to arouse the public of the danger of the law. The Pan Democrats should act together.”

Lai replied:

“You’re right. Shall we meet earlier?”

Judge Alex Lee asked about James Cunningham’s comment in the message: “If I am going to do something to help you, at least with Hong Kong, we should discuss well before the end of April.” Lee questioned whether this was more than a report for Lai’s reference and included background on how to provide assistance. Lai responded, “It was his initiative to offer help, I had nothing to do with it.”

The prosecution asked if Lai intended to seek advice from James Cunningham regarding Hong Kong affairs. Lai said no.

The prosecution noted that Lai forwarded James Cunningham’s message to Cheung Kim-hung on the same day, commenting, “Big news” and “to maximum effect.” They asked if this meant maximizing the impact of Anson Chan’s meeting with Pence. Lai said it probably did. Initially, Lai claimed that forwarding the message to Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man was only for their reference, but under further questioning from Judge Esther Toh, Lai agreed that he intended for Cheung to maximize the impact of the event.

Judge Toh asked if Lai’s comment could be interpreted as an editorial instruction. Lai responded, “You could say so,” but emphasized that it was an important meeting. The prosecution then asked if Lai had instructed Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man to maximize the impact of Anson Chan’s meeting with Pence based on James Cunningham’s suggestion. Lai denied following James Cunningham’s advice.

Regarding the Apple Daily article, which stated, “Democratic figures believe that Pence’s personal meeting with Mrs. Chan indicates that the U.S. government has included the Hong Kong issue in U.S.-China affairs,” the prosecution asked if this part was based on James Cunningham’s suggestion. Lai stated that he did not think the reporter was referencing James Cunningham’s suggestions and noted that the article only stated “Democratic figures believe.”

10:40 James Cunningham Informed Lai That Anson Chan Was Concerned About the Extradition Bill and Needed to Find Ways to Stop It

The prosecution questioned Lai about his interactions with Anson Chan and then-U.S. Vice President Mike Pence in March 2019. The prosecution presented evidence showing Lai sent a photo on March 23 of Anson Chan shaking hands with Pence to former Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat, with the message, “She met Pence!”

The prosecution asked if Lai seemed excited. Lai responded, “Why do you say that?” The prosecution clarified it was just a question. Lai replied, “Don’t make it up. I just said she met Pence.” The prosecution noted that Lai included an exclamation mark in the message, to which Lai replied, “So that’s excitement?” Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai was impressed at the time. The prosecution followed up, asking, “Did you?” Lai agreed.

The prosecution further presented an article from Apple Daily about Anson Chan’s meeting with Pence, as well as a summary sent by James Cunningham to Lai after meeting with Anson Chan prior to her meeting with Pence. The summary stated:

**“I had a good talk with Anson. She is quite concerned about the extradition law, is fully aware of the need to defeat it. It came up repeatedly in the course of the discussion over the course of the evening. I advised her to make a core element of her discussion on the Hill and the nsc etc .

She said it was already. But it also seemed there is little or no “democratic” cohesion or coherence or plan. She said the measure will pass in some form, the Chinese business folks are trying to amend if becoz they too could be snatched up for corruption etc. i advised her to focus on that The bill is a danger to all in HK

She is traveling with Dennis Kwok and Charles Mok who she told me were her successors. I didn’t get a chance to talk to them, but there was a group discussion in which they seemed thoughtful and articulate. Searching for a rationale for international opposition to Beijing in general and extradition in particular.

If I am going to do something to help you at least with HK. It seems we should discuss well before the end of April. If I understood Anson correctly, the issue of the law will come to a head in the next couple months. Jim”**

Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai knew that Anson Chan was about to meet Pence at the time. Lai responded that he did not. When asked about James Cunningham’s mention of the National Security Council (NSC), the prosecution asked if Lai knew what it was at the time. Lai replied that he had not paid attention. Judge Lee further asked if Lai knew that Anson Chan was going to meet with people on Capitol Hill. Lai said he did not.

The prosecution questioned whether Lai arranged the meeting between Anson Chan and James Cunningham. Lai denied it, stating that the two already knew each other. He also denied knowledge of James Cunningham advising Anson Chan, reiterating that he was unaware of the matter.

10:30 Lai Acknowledged Seeking James Cunningham’s Assistance Regarding the “Struggle Between Hong Kong and Beijing”

The prosecution presented a message dated March 19, 2019, which Lai forwarded to Mark Simon. The message, intended for James Cunningham, read:

“Jim, Great that you’re having dinner with Anson. She’ll be able to tell you more about HK than we can. Now Taiwan is going into election and nothing is going on. Yes, the Tsai administration has been very disappointing. They didn’t do what they promised. I’ll be looking at every opportunity to have you help our struggle and Taiwan’s with Beijing. Thanks for offering and let’s keep in touch.”

Lai confirmed that “Anson” referred to Anson Chan, and that Chan and James Cunningham had indeed had dinner together.

The prosecution asked why Lai described the Tsai Ing-wen administration as “very disappointing.” Lai stated he could not remember. When asked if he was referring to the Tsai administration’s inability to cooperate with James Cunningham, Lai said he could not recall. The prosecution also inquired about the “promises” mentioned in the message. Lai responded that he had already said he could not remember and did not know what promises were being referred to.

When asked about the “struggle” mentioned in the message, Lai explained that “negotiating between Taiwan and Beijing is always a struggle.” The prosecution asked why this was the case, and Lai replied, “Because it’s very difficult.”

Judge Esther Toh questioned whether Lai’s use of “we” referred to Hong Kong. Lai said he did not know. Toh followed up, pointing out that Lai explicitly mentioned “our struggle and Taiwan’s struggle with Beijing.” Lai stated, “You could interpret it that way, but I’m not sure. Maybe ‘we’ referred to Taiwan.”

Judge Toh remarked that if Lai meant “we” as Taiwan, there would have been no need to say “our struggle and Taiwan’s struggle with Beijing.” Lai responded, “You could be right.”

The prosecution noted that the Hong Kong government proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance in March 2019. Lai stated he could not remember. The prosecution then asked if Lai sought James Cunningham’s advice regarding the “struggle between Hong Kong and Beijing.” Lai agreed.

Finally, the prosecution asked if Tsai Ing-wen ultimately did not hire James Cunningham. Lai confirmed this.

10:10 Lai’s Message Indicated That James Cunningham Would Find It Difficult to Assist Taiwan if He Had a Job – Lai: The Matter Felt Urgent at the Time

The prosecution continued questioning Lai about his relationship with Jiang Chun-nan, described as the “capable assistant” of then-Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The prosecution presented a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Jiang on May 16, 2018. In the exchange, Lai mentioned that retired U.S. General and former Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, along with former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, shared some opinions. Lai stated:

“They believe that the current Trump administration is the best opportunity for Taiwan and the U.S. to deepen diplomatic relations, but Taiwan is too cautious about mainland China, creating further obstacles for the U.S. They asked me to discuss this with you first, so it will be easier for them to persuade ‘The Lady’ when they visit in late July. Jack is currently closely working with the Trump Team (meeting them twice a week at the White House), and they see many opportunities to change the status quo. For example, they suggested ‘The Lady’ could visit the U.S. to attend private events, such as those hosted by Rubio, or speak at women’s rights organizations about democracy and human rights. However, Taiwan remains overly cautious. Even for the AIT garden completion ceremony, Bolton’s deputy’s request to attend was politely declined.”

The prosecution asked whether Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz wanted Lai to talk to Jiang or Tsai Ing-wen. Lai confirmed, saying that the two wanted him to relay the message to Tsai Ing-wen through Jiang. The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had used the word “persuade.” Lai agreed, explaining that the aim was to convince the Taiwanese government not to be overly cautious. The prosecution asked if this was to make the Taiwanese government more receptive to Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz’s opinions. Lai agreed.

When asked if the “Bolton” mentioned by Lai referred to John Bolton, Lai confirmed, stating that at the time, he knew Bolton had become the U.S. National Security Advisor.

The prosecution then presented a message Lai sent to Jiang in 2018:

“Antonio, I hope to address the Washington PR function issue soon, utilizing Jim Cunningham’s abilities and connections. I fear that if Jim secures a permanent job, it will be difficult to find someone as capable to assist. Should I fly over to persuade Mayor Chen Chu again? Thank you, Lai.”

Lai stated that he could not recall why he mentioned Chen Ju. He also noted that the message indicated that if former U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong and Macau, James Cunningham, had a job, it would be challenging for him to assist.

The prosecution asked if Lai felt anxious at the time. Lai acknowledged that he considered the matter urgent.

The prosecution then presented a message from September 2018, forwarded by Lai’s assistant Mark Simon. The message, sent by James Cunningham, read:

“Mark, as in the past, no contract yet, but don’t push them, at least not yet. Since we talked, I have been approached by the State Department about returning to a position there. Quite a surprise. If I were to go into the government, I would not be able to advise Taipei.”

The prosecution asked who “they” referred to in the message. Lai explained that it referred to Taiwan. When asked if Lai knew whether James Cunningham ultimately accepted a public position, Lai said he did not know. The prosecution inquired whether Lai had anticipated that someone would offer James Cunningham a job. Lai said he believed it was a commercial company offering Cunningham a position, not a national organization.

10:04 Court in Session

The Witness

Stand up for Jimmy Lai

In a democracy, every voice matters. Click below to add your voice and share this message.

#FreeJimmyLai

#FreeJimmyLai

#FreeJimmyLai

#FreeJimmyLai