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

Show your support by using the hashtag #FreeJimmyLai

Day 123: January 22, 2025

The Witness: Live Updates | Jimmy Lai’s Trial Day 123: Lai Says Nuclear Weapons Metaphor Represents U.S. Values, Judges Question Lack of Clarity

Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Digital, faces charges of “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses. On Wednesday, Jan. 22, the trial entered its 123rd day at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. Lai, in his 31st day of testimony, faced his fifth day of cross-examination by prosecutors.

The prosecution referenced Lai’s 2019 remarks during a dialogue hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). At the event, Lai compared Hong Kong to Cold War-era Berlin, saying, “Hong Kong is fighting a war of the same values as you. This means we are fighting your war in your enemy’s camp.” He also described the United States as having “nuclear weapons” capable of “finishing them in a minute.”

Lai clarified during testimony that the comments were metaphorical, with the term “nuclear weapons” symbolizing America’s moral values. Under cross-examination, he acknowledged perceiving the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as an adversary but denied harboring hatred or detestation toward it.

Judge Esther Toh questioned whether Lai’s failure to explicitly label his comments as metaphorical could have led the audience to believe he was advocating for a U.S.-led military confrontation against China, potentially involving nuclear weapons. Lai responded that it is not customary to state explicitly when using metaphors, emphasizing that his statements clearly referred to a “battle of values.”

The case is being heard by National Security Law-designated High Court Judges Esther Toh, Susana 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 is led 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

15:55 Lai Confirms Meetings with U.S. Lawmakers in September and October 2019 but Does Not Recall Details

The prosecution presented a conversation between Lai and Mark Simon dated September 10, 2019. Simon mentioned, “We are getting asked to push October as closer to when HK bill actually goes up for action as well as when Administration.” Lai confirmed that the “October” mentioned referred to his planned U.S. trip that month. When asked if the “HK bill” referred to the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, Lai stated he did not recall.

The prosecution questioned whether Lai’s October trip was tied to his earlier request for U.S. lawmakers to conduct a fact-finding mission in Hong Kong. Lai responded that his October U.S. trip was primarily to give a speech at the Hoover Institution.

The prosecution noted that Lai met with Senators Rick Scott, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley between September 29 and October 14, 2019. Lai confirmed the meetings but stated he could not remember their content. When asked if the meetings involved discussions about Hong Kong’s situation, Lai replied that he did not recall. When further pressed about whether the meetings were related to lobbying efforts, Lai stated he did not want to speculate.

The prosecution also displayed a message from Mark Simon to Lai, dated October 8, 2020. The message included a suggestion from an unnamed individual:
“Mark. Two things. You and Jimmy and Hong might talk about what US should do. I don’t think it has to be in details. It can even be in the form of ‘The US might consider cutting down on student visas from China…’”

The message also suggested that Lai say:
“Hong Kong people don’t want to be just another rich Chinese city. We want to preserve our freedom. We had to rise on our own work and initiatives—without having to worry about politics.”

The prosecution asked if this message was related to Lai’s speech at the Hoover Institution. Lai denied this, adding that neither Yeung Wai-hong nor Mark Simon were involved in the speech.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired if Lai knew who had written the message. Lai speculated that it might have been James Cunningham but added that Cunningham likely did not know Yeung Wai-hong, so he could not confirm.

15:33 Break

15:10 Prosecution Questions Whether Mark Simon Had Insider Information in Washington; Lai: He Was Merely Citing Reports

The prosecution presented a 2019 conversation between Lai and Mark Simon:

Lai: “Over dinner just report to them senators and congressmen’s fact-finding trip and Jim’s role, don’t talk about me and my trip. Thanks. Jimmy”
Mark Simon: “Got it. The Trump quote is already being countered. Pompeo has walked back.”
Lai: “How?”
Mark Simon: “Pompeo was asked specifically about it in Thailand where he is now, as is Mary, and he said they will not talk about how the US will respond.”
Lai: “Ok. But it’s not an obvious walk back.”
Mark Simon: “The walk back will probably happen over the next week.”
Lai: “Ok. Thanks.”
Mark Simon: “Senators Rubio and others sent something out yesterday asking WH to clarify.”

The prosecution asked why Lai instructed Simon not to discuss his trip. Lai said he didn’t recall the dinner in question and couldn’t answer.

The prosecution asked about James Cunningham’s role. Lai explained James Cunningham helped coordinate the fact-finding trip. When asked whether Cunningham handled the contacts, Lai said he didn’t know.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if all the participating U.S. lawmakers were Republicans. Lai agreed, citing Senator Marco Rubio as an example. However, Lai clarified that the trip also included Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, although she didn’t attend.

Chan: “So the trip wasn’t exclusive to Republicans?”
Lai: “I didn’t say it was limited to Republicans; it just so happened that those who participated were Republicans.”

Regarding Simon’s statement that Pompeo had commented on the matter in Thailand, the prosecution asked if Simon had insider connections with the U.S. government. Lai denied this, asserting Simon was quoting media reports.

The prosecution pointed out that Simon’s remark about a “walk back” happening within a week seemed to suggest insider information. Lai countered that it was Simon’s speculation.

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios queried whether Simon had connections with Matt Pottinger. Lai confirmed that Simon and Pottinger had been acquainted for years, akin to Simon’s relationship with Mary Kissel.

The prosecution asked if Simon had ties to the U.S. National Security Council. Lai denied this.

Remedios: “Did Simon have connections with John Bolton?”
Lai: “Bolton is my personal friend. I don’t know if Simon knows him or if I ever mentioned Bolton to Simon.”

Asked about Simon’s ties to Christian Whiton, Lai described Whiton as a lobbyist. When questioned whether Simon could contact Pompeo directly, Lai denied this.

Lai explained that Simon’s connections with individuals like Pottinger stemmed from Lai’s own relationships. Some, such as former journalists from The Wall Street Journal, were introduced to Simon by Lai.

The prosecution asked if Whiton could contact staff on the vice president’s team. Lai confirmed Whiton had such access due to his previous White House experience.

The prosecution displayed a conversation from August 5, 2019, where Lai asked Simon:
“Mark, I appreciate it if you can input your thoughts on these questions. What in the long term does success for Hong Kong look like?”

Lai explained that someone had posed these questions to him, and he forwarded them to Simon for input. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired whether Lai was preparing for an interview. Lai denied this, adding that the questions seemed odd and were likely from someone seeking his views. Alex Lee Wan-tang pressed further, suggesting the questions implied an interview. Lai maintained that he didn’t know.

15:00 Judge Asks if Lai Agrees with Trump Calling Hong Kong Protests “Riots”; Lai: Only Partially

The prosecution presented a conversation from August 2, 2019, between Lai and Mark Simon. In the exchange, Lai shared a Bloomberg article titled “Trump Calls Hong Kong Protests ‘Riots,’ Adopting China Rhetoric.” Lai remarked, “Mark, this is very disappointing coming from Trump.”

Mark Simon responded:
“It was not good and I have already reached out to Matt Pottinger and other people there. It’s not a major issue with Trump, and so he’s way too casual with it.”

The prosecution asked if Lai felt disappointed because Trump referred to the Hong Kong protests as “riots.” Lai stated he could not recall but noted that the article’s headline might have influenced his reaction. Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai agreed with Trump’s description of the protests as riots. Lai responded, “It’s not a total riot because the riot is only part of the young people, and the demonstration mostly was peaceful.”

When the prosecution asked whether Lai agreed with Trump labeling the protests as riots, Lai confirmed but emphasized that rioting was only one aspect of the movement.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether the “Matt” mentioned in the message was the same “Matt” referenced earlier. Lai stated he wasn’t sure. The prosecution clarified that “Matt” referred to Matt Pottinger, a senior Trump administration official. Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked if Pottinger was the U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor. Lai said that was likely his role but couldn’t remember precisely. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Pottinger worked under John Bolton. Lai said no.

The prosecution questioned whether Mark Simon had access to people at the U.S. National Security Council. Lai confirmed and explained that Pottinger was formerly a journalist for The Wall Street Journal and had known both himself and Simon for a long time. Lai further clarified that Simon maintained contact with Pottinger.

The prosecution asked if Simon was close to Pottinger. Lai disagreed, explaining that Pottinger had always worked in the U.S. and had never come to Hong Kong.

14:50 Messages Show Lai Claimed July 21 Yuen Long Violence Was Acquiesced by Establishment Camp

The prosecution presented a message sent by Lai to Mark Simon on July 23, 2019, two days after the Yuen Long incident, where Lai stated:

“Mark, 7.21 Yuen Long triad violence was definitely acquiesced by the establishment camp to induce fear to stop the resistance movement. This kind of thinking progresses Tiananmen massacre replay. It’s high time that we ask US senators and congressmen to probe into this violence as a warning to break the establishment.”

Mark Simon responded:

“The attack was discussed on the Hill, and Trump was even asked a question by the press today based on violence. Christian and I spoke several times today, and we have been told that Senator Cruz is setting a trip for October to Asia with a delegation of Senators. Christian also saw Sen. Johnson and made a pitch for a quicker trip. As per yesterday, we are trying to divert any delegation we can find that is coming out of Asia. Will have Jim reach out through State.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai directed Mark Simon to invite U.S. senators and congressmen to Hong Kong. Lai responded that such arrangements were likely made by former U.S. Consul General James Cunningham. When asked if Simon was involved, Lai stated he was unsure, as he himself did not communicate with U.S. lawmakers.

The prosecution pointed out that Simon mentioned the Yuen Long attack was discussed in Congress, suggesting he had inside information. Lai disagreed, saying this was public knowledge and likely based on media reports. The prosecution also highlighted Simon’s mention of Cunningham contacting the State Department, to which Lai speculated that it referred to attempts to redirect senators headed for Taiwan or Asia to also visit Hong Kong. Lai claimed he was unaware of the specifics.

When the prosecution cited Lai’s message stating, “That’s great. The quicker they come, the more relevance they carry, greater the support,” Lai agreed, noting that he hoped the senators would visit Hong Kong promptly.

The prosecution further pointed to Lai’s statement:
“They can go to HK then Taiwan. That can also indicate an acknowledgement of the two places’ solidarity in opposing China.”
Lai confirmed this as well.

Judge Esther Toh questioned Lai, noting he previously claimed only Pelosi and Rubio were invited, and denied involvement with other U.S. lawmakers visiting Hong Kong. She asked about his apparent discussions with Simon about other senators. Lai explained that the senators had already planned to visit Hong Kong and his suggestion was only to expedite their visit following the Yuen Long incident.

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai knew these senators were traveling to Asia. Lai acknowledged this and stated that since Hong Kong was part of their itinerary, he encouraged them to visit sooner. When asked how he knew about their plans, Lai said he was informed, possibly by Simon or Christian Whiton, but could not recall specifics.

14:33 Lai States U.S. Lawmakers Came to Hong Kong Voluntarily; No Payments Made as U.S. Law Prohibits It

Regarding Lai’s intent to lobby U.S. lawmakers to visit Hong Kong and observe the protests, the prosecution asked if any lawmakers accepted his invitation. Lai responded that Nancy Pelosi and Marco Rubio did not visit Hong Kong.

The prosecution cited a July 21, 2019, message from Lai to Mark Simon:

“Mark, it’s important that we have a few senators and congressmen come to HK for fact-finding. What the government don’t agree to do in investigating the violence between the police and the demonstrations, they can actually exercise a fact-finding mission on this trip and with follow up reports later. That can give HK people and world a very clear message that US is concerned with China’s human right problem…It’s something we’ve to accomplish with whatever resources we can put in to accomplish it.”

The prosecution inquired what resources Lai referred to. Lai explained that he meant any available resources. When asked if he paid U.S. lawmakers to visit Hong Kong, Lai firmly denied it, stating that such payments are not allowed under U.S. law. He clarified that U.S. senators and congressmen cannot legally accept payments for trips to Hong Kong or elsewhere.

Lai emphasized that the lawmakers who came to Hong Kong did so voluntarily. While he had invited Pelosi and Rubio, neither ultimately visited Hong Kong.

12: 56 Lunch

12:35 Lai Acknowledges Intention to Lobby U.S. Lawmakers to Visit Hong Kong and Observe Protests

The prosecution presented a July 21, 2019, exchange between Lai and Mark Simon, where Lai stated:

“Let’s treat the trip of the senators and congressmen as a trip of fact-finding of violence of HK resistance movement. This is such a good idea that it may be a subject to bounce off with Matt and Mary.” 

Judge Esther Toh inquired whether the idea of a fact-finding mission was Lai’s own. Lai explained that it had been discussed with pro-democracy figures and acknowledged, “You could say it was my idea.”

The prosecution asked about the individuals mentioned in the message. Lai confirmed that Mary referred to Mary Kissel, but he could not recall who Matt was. Regarding Christian, Lai confirmed it referred to Christian Whiton, then a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department. When asked about Bill, Lai suggested it might be Wall Street Journal editor Bill McGurn but added he was unsure of McGurn’s involvement and ultimately said he could not remember. Lai also confirmed that Pelosi and Rubio referred to then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Marco Rubio.

The prosecution questioned why Lai wanted Pelosi to participate in the fact-finding trip. Lai explained it was because Pelosi and Rubio were involved in a commission related to Chinese affairs. When asked which commission, Lai admitted he did not know the exact details, only that it was related to China.

The prosecution then asked what Lai meant by “lobbying” in the message. Lai clarified that it referred to persuading the lawmakers to visit Hong Kong.

When asked if he wanted senators and congressmen to come to Hong Kong for a fact-finding trip, Lai agreed. The prosecution pointed out that Lai proposed the idea in July 2019, and senators visited Hong Kong in September and October of the same year. Lai confirmed this but clarified that neither Pelosi nor Rubio visited. The prosecution highlighted that Senators Rick Scott and Ted Cruz came to Hong Kong. Lai confirmed their visits but emphasized that they came of their own accord and were not arranged by him.

Judge Susana D’Almada asked whether Rick Scott and Ted Cruz had any connections to Pelosi or Rubio. Lai stated that they did not.

12:13 Lai Informed Cheung Chi-wai After Meeting with Bolton, Denies Issuing Editorial Orders, Claims He Only Provided News Information

The prosecution continued referencing Lai’s article Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security?, arguing that Lai suggested the U.S. should punish China through sanctions in response to its suppression of Hong Kong. They questioned whether Lai’s consistent approach was to punish and retaliate against China. Lai disagreed, stating that this was only his view at that specific moment.

The prosecution then questioned Lai regarding his July 2019 trip to the U.S., noting his meeting with then-National Security Advisor John Bolton. They highlighted a July 10 message from Lai to Cheung Chi-wai, head of Apple Daily’s online news platform, where Lai mentioned discussing the extradition bill with Bolton and suggested Cheung encourage Hong Kong youth through actions. The prosecution asked if these actions included sanctioning Hong Kong officials. Lai denied this interpretation.

Cheung had replied that the news was already published. The court displayed the news article titled [Resistance Movement] Meeting with U.S. National Security Advisor Bolton: Jimmy Lai Calls for Support to Encourage Hong Kong Youth. The prosecution suggested that Lai’s U.S. meetings with senior officials and legislators aimed to advocate for actions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials. Lai clarified that his goal was to garner support to encourage Hong Kong youth, not to advocate for sanctions.

Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai’s message to Cheung constituted an editorial directive. Lai denied this, stating he merely provided news information. When Judge Toh pressed further, questioning if the content was intended for publication, Lai explained that providing newsworthy content does not equate to an editorial order. Judge Toh remained skeptical, questioning if Lai, as the company owner, was issuing editorial instructions. Lai responded, “If you consider it an editorial directive, I can’t argue with you.”

Judge Alex Lee asked why Lai sent the information directly to Cheung instead of editorial staff like Chan Pui-man or Cheung Kim-hung. Lai explained that Cheung handled online real-time news.

The prosecution also probed Lai’s communication with Pompeo’s aide Mary Kissel following his U.S. trip in July 2019. Lai acknowledged that Mark Simon had forwarded him messages from Kissel but claimed he did not respond or communicate with her directly. One forwarded message noted that Pompeo’s speech had incorporated ideas from Lai’s article, although it did not mention Lai by name.

11:33 Break

11:05 Lai Acknowledges Writing About Revoking Student Visas for Chinese and Hong Kong Officials’ Children

The prosecution presented an article written by Lai, published in The New York Times on May 29, 2020, titled Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security? Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned the prosecution’s rationale for moving from 2019 events to this 2020 article. The prosecution explained that it related to Mary Kissel’s earlier advice to Lai about asking Pompeo specific questions, such as sanctions on officials’ children. Judge Lee accepted the connection.

The prosecution quoted the article:

 “There are other ways to retaliate against China for its repression of Hong Kong. Revoking student visas for the children of both Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong officials, and increasing scrutiny of party corruption abroad.”

The prosecution asked if this constituted a call for sanctions. Lai clarified that it was about revoking student visas. Judge Esther Toh asked if this differed from Lai’s earlier statements about denying visas, as the article advocated for revocation. Lai agreed and acknowledged that revoking visas was a further step.

When Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why his position had shifted, Lai responded with a smile, saying, “when people write you know when you write something, sometimes you just move on.” Judge Toh inquired if revoking visas was part of a broader sanction strategy. Lai replied, “You could say that.”

Judge Lee also noted the article’s mention of “increasing scrutiny of party corruption abroad.” Lai explained that Chinese officials often deposited corrupt funds in U.S. bank accounts. Judge Lee asked if Lai wanted the U.S. to investigate corruption in China. Lai stated that the goal was to prevent such practices. When asked if he would support the U.S. returning illicit funds to China upon request, Lai said he would.

The prosecution further pressed Lai about his prior comments on freezing the bank accounts of Chinese officials in the U.S. Lai clarified that he referred specifically to accounts connected to corruption. When Judge Lee remarked that this seemed more aligned with mutual legal assistance than sanctions, Lai replied, “Whether you call it a sanction or not, this is what I mean.”

The prosecution questioned if Lai had advocated for freezing bank accounts. Lai reiterated that his concern was with accounts tied to corruption. The prosecution also brought up Lai’s alleged comments about being indifferent to Hong Kong’s special status being revoked. Lai denied this, clarifying that he had stated revoking the status would not be effective.

Separately, the prosecution addressed Lai’s uncertainty about whether “Paul,” mentioned in the context of meeting Pompeo, referred to former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. The prosecution presented a message from Wolfowitz to Lai on July 8, 2019:
“Hi Jimmy, Thank you for last night’s lovely gathering.”

Lai reiterated that he only recalled having dinner with Wolfowitz and former U.S. Consul General James Cunningham on July 7. Judge Toh inquired if Lai met Pompeo on July 9. Lai clarified that the meeting occurred on the morning of July 8. After discussing time zone differences, Lai confirmed the meeting with Pompeo happened on July 8.

The prosecution asked if Wolfowitz had arranged the meeting with Pompeo. Lai denied this and questioned why it would be assumed, reiterating his uncertainty about the identity of the “Paul” involved in arranging the meeting.

10:40 Article Urges Refusal of Student Visas for Leaders’ Children—Lai: Denying Visas Is Different from Sanctions

In response to Mary Kissel’s suggestion to “sanction the children of Hong Kong and CCP leaders who suppress protesters,” Lai stated that in his public speeches, he only discussed sanctioning officials, not their children. The prosecution cited an article Lai wrote in August 2019 and sent to The Wall Street Journal editor Bill McGurn, which he later forwarded to Mark Simon. The article stated:

“Americans, please write to your senators, congressmen and policy makers to keep us in their political narratives and use sanctions to stop China from encroaching on our freedom. Meanwhile America government can help us by:

Deny student visas for children of leaders of Hong Kong and CCP who crack down on us. Expand student visas for Hong Kong and Taiwan citizens.”

Lai clarified that this article was never published in Hong Kong. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that the article seemed to contradict Lai’s testimony. Lai explained that he never advocated for sanctioning officials’ children but did suggest denying them student visas. He emphasized that denying visas is different from imposing sanctions, as sanctions involve forcing children to return to China, while denying visas merely prevents them from entering the U.S.

Judge Lee pressed further, asking how these children could continue their studies in the U.S. without visas. Lai responded that they would be denied entry at the visa application stage, not deported after arriving in the U.S.

The prosecution argued that the article contradicted Lai’s testimony. Lai disagreed, stating, “You can interpret it that way.” The prosecution highlighted the article’s conclusion:
“We have eliminated slavery. Why not tyranny!”
The prosecution asked whom Lai meant by “tyranny.” Lai confirmed it referred to China. When asked if the reference to slavery was specifically about American slavery, Lai denied this, stating it referred to the broader abolition of slavery in history, not solely in the U.S.

Judge Esther Toh asked why Lai used “We” in “We have eliminated slavery,” implying inclusion. Lai explained that “We” referred to humanity and history as a whole. Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang quietly remarked, “Not me.”

The prosecution continued, asking if Lai had advocated for sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials between 2019 and 2020. Lai confirmed that he primarily called for freezing corrupt funds held by Chinese officials.

10:30 Host Claimed Extraditing Murderers Was a Pretext, Prosecution Questions Why Lai Didn’t Correct

During a discussion at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where Lai compared Hong Kong to Cold War-era Berlin, Judge Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had drawn on Mary Kissel’s suggestion. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution presented a transcript of the discussion, in which the host said:
“The extradition law, we’re not concerned about – this is not about murderers who find their way to Hong Kong, right? ⋯⋯This is deliberately designed in the eyes of the Hong Kong’s residents to basically send opponents of the regime in Beijing back to the mainland.”
Lai had affirmed the host’s statement during the discussion.

The prosecution questioned why Lai didn’t correct the host, noting that the purpose of the extradition bill was to close a loophole allowing fugitives, such as a murder suspect who fled from Taiwan to Hong Kong, to avoid extradition. Lai responded that while that seemed to be the case, the broader implications were much greater. When pressed on why he didn’t correct the host, Lai said it was the host’s perspective.

Judge Lee asked if Lai agreed with the host’s assertion that extraditing murderers was merely a pretext, with the real goal being to extradite Beijing’s political opponents to China. Lai appeared to agree. The prosecution further asked why Lai didn’t clarify that the bill aimed to address the murder case. Lai stated he didn’t view it as a misunderstanding.

The prosecution accused Lai of deliberately misleading the audience. Lai denied this, saying he believed the host’s interpretation was accurate and that targeting murder suspects was merely an excuse. When Judge Lee asked why Lai held this belief, Lai replied that if the bill had only targeted murderers, millions of citizens wouldn’t have protested. Judge Esther Toh questioned whether the protesters might have misunderstood the bill, just as Lai allegedly did. Lai conceded it was a possible interpretation but disagreed.

Judge Lee asked whether millions of people could have been influenced by Lai’s ideas. Lai responded, “I don’t have that kind of influence.”

The prosecution then turned to Lai’s repeated comparison of Hong Kong to Berlin, noting that he had made similar statements in other public appearances. Lai explained that he wanted U.S. lawmakers to express support for Hong Kong, akin to Kennedy’s famous statement. The prosecution pointed out that Lai had mentioned this comparison on the Live Chat program, on Twitter, and in his column Success or Failure with a Smile. Lai clarified that some references in Live Chat and his articles were about Taiwan.

10:20 Lai Claims His Remarks Used Nuclear Weapons as a Metaphor for a Values War, Judge Questions Lack of Clarity

The prosecution noted that Mary Kissel, an aide to former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, had suggested comparing Hong Kong to Berlin during the Cold War. They alleged that Lai later made similar remarks in various forums, including a discussion with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Lai confirmed this but denied raising the comparison during his meeting with Pompeo. The prosecution pointed out that retired U.S. General and former Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Rupert Hammond-Chambers, President of the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, also attended the FDD discussion. Lai stated that the three were present as audience members and denied paying for their attendance, asking rhetorically, “Why would I pay them?”

The prosecution quoted a transcript of the discussion, in which Lai reportedly said:
“Well, I think they all agree that Hong Kong is fighting a war of the same values as you. It means that we’re fighting your war in your enemy camp. We need your support.”

Lai further stated:
“It’s like when Kennedy went to Berlin, he said that “I’m a Berliner”. How much confidence and hope he gave to the Berliner to face the threat of Soviet Union at the time. We need the same thing. We need the support. We need the confidence. We need the hope. We need to know that America is behind us. By backing us, the America also sowing to the will of their moral authority because we are the only place in China, a tiny island in China, which is sharing your values, which is fighting the same war you have with China⋯⋯ This is something that America has to know, not only supporting us, but use your moral authority in this cold war to win this war in the beginning because they have nothing. It’s like they are going to the battle without any weapon, and you have the nuclear weapon. You can finish them in a minute.”

Lai explained in court that his comments were a metaphor for a war of values. The prosecution asked whether he was advocating the defeat of China. Lai insisted it was a metaphor, with “America’s moral values” likened to nuclear weapons.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned how the audience could discern that Lai’s remarks were metaphorical. Lai argued that he consistently referred to America’s values as being akin to nuclear weapons. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios expressed doubt, noting that Lai had not explicitly stated his remarks were metaphorical. Lai reiterated that his statements were about values. The prosecution accused him of advocating for the “defeat of China,” which Lai denied, maintaining it was metaphorical.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios raised her voice and questioned, “Your thoughts are silent—they cannot be heard by the audience. Do you agree?” Lai responded, “OK, I agree.”

The prosecution asked if China was Lai’s enemy. Lai replied that it was America’s enemy. When pressed further, he admitted that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was his enemy but said he did not “hate” the CCP. The prosecution asked if he “detested” the CCP, to which Lai said he did not.

Judge Esther Toh further questioned whether Lai’s lack of explicit clarification about using a metaphor could lead the audience to believe that he was advocating for a war alongside the U.S. against China, with the U.S. deploying nuclear weapons. Lai countered that metaphors are not usually prefaced with an explanation, and he had clearly stated the discussion was about a values war.

10:10 Prosecution: Lai Previously Admitted Suggesting Sanctions Against Hong Kong Officials During Meeting with Pompeo

The prosecution outlined events in Hong Kong during 2019, including the government’s proposal to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance in February, the suspension of the amendment in June, the storming of the Legislative Council by protesters on July 1, and the formal withdrawal of the amendment in September. The prosecution also cited a message from Lai’s assistant, Mark Simon, which mentioned Mary Kissel, an aide to then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In the message, Kissel suggested, “Regarding what you might ask Pompeo, Mary recommends being as specific as possible… She says Pompeo in these meetings isn’t looking for grand plans; he’s looking for actionable steps to help Hong Kong.” The message also noted Kissel’s suggestion of sanctions targeting the children of Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong leaders responsible for suppressing protests in Hong Kong.

The prosecution stated that during examination-in-chief, Lai admitted that during a meeting with Pompeo in July 2019, he suggested the possibility of sanctioning Hong Kong officials. Related reports were also presented. Following Lai’s visit to the U.S., Apple Daily published an article titled “[Resistance Movement] Jimmy Lai Urges Peaceful Defiance of Triad, Calls for International Support for Hong Kong’s Anti-Extradition Bill Movement,” accompanied by an image of former Democratic Party Chairman Albert Ho with the caption “Explaining Zhongnanhai.” During direct examination, Lai acknowledged that if the report mentioned his suggestion for the U.S. to sanction those suppressing Hong Kong and Chinese protesters, then he had made such remarks, adding that he believed the report was accurate.

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