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

Show your support by using the hashtag #FreeJimmyLai

Day 124: January 23, 2025

The Witness: Live Updates | Day 124 of Jimmy Lai’s Trial: Lai Says U.S. Visit Was to Advocate for Hong Kong; Judge Questions Motive After Extradition Bill Suspension

The trial of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” continued Thursday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, temporarily acting as the High Court. Thursday marked the 124th day of the trial and Lai’s 32nd day of testimony, as the prosecution proceeded with its sixth day of cross-examination.

Prosecutors alleged that before Lai’s visit to the United States in October 2019, his assistant, Mark Simon, sent a message stating, “We are going to work the Senate and House quite heavily.” Lai denied that the trip was connected to the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. He said the purpose was to seek support from U.S. lawmakers for Hong Kong and to advocate for the city, which he described as being in crisis due to the extradition bill.

Both judges and prosecutors questioned Lai, pointing out that the government had already suspended the extradition bill by then. They asked what crisis Lai was referring to and what kind of support he was seeking. Lai responded that protests were still ongoing and that Hong Kong residents were fighting for rights promised under the Basic Law, including universal suffrage. He added that despite the bill’s suspension, public dissatisfaction and demonstrations continued.

The case is being heard by judges designated 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 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

16:00 Prosecution Questions Why Mark Simon Could Attend U.S. National Security Council Meetings

The prosecution presented a message from Mark Simon dated November 8, 2019, referencing a tweet by then-Senator Marco Rubio, which stated:

“One way or another our #HongKong Human Rights & Democracy Act will be on the Senate floor very soon. I understand we have many issues to deal with, but we aren’t going to wait forever.”

Mark Simon added in the message:
“Rubio taking the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to the floor of the Senate. Means it gets a vote as early as today or next week. Hard to see it not passing. Excellent news.”

Lai responded, “Wonderful.” When asked if he considered passing the bill a good thing, Lai agreed.

The prosecution further questioned Lai about forwarding this message to Chan Tsz-wah and other pan-democrats, including Albert Ho, Martin Lee, and Lee Cheuk-yan. Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then displayed a message from James Cunningham, which read:
“Looks like the election is off to a good start. Good luck today…”

Lai replied, “Hope Trump signs. It’s bad for him if he doesn’t.” In court, Lai explained that everyone hoped Trump would sign the bill, as it would be unfavorable if he didn’t. When asked if he also hoped for Trump’s signature, Lai agreed.

The prosecution presented another message from Mark Simon, stating:
“I was at the National Security Council yesterday, they were laying the groundwork for signing the bill. Trump decided last week to sign it, but he wanted to try and not give Xi any leverage on trade talks.”

The prosecution asked why Mark Simon could attend National Security Council (NSC) meetings. Lai replied that he didn’t know. When pressed further, Lai refused to assume that Simon had a close relationship with the NSC.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned repeatedly why Mark Simon, who was employed by Lai, could participate in such meetings while Lai claimed to have no knowledge. Lai responded that he didn’t know and had not inquired, considering it insignificant. He added that he couldn’t possibly know everything about Simon.

Under further questioning, Lai clarified that Simon was neither a U.S. government official nor an NSC member. He speculated that Simon may have been invited to the NSC meeting, as attendees generally require an invitation. Lai also emphasized that he himself had never attended an NSC meeting.

15:46 Judges inquire about Mark Simon’s background and his connection with Lai

The prosecution presented a message where Jimmy Lai told former Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat, “The bill is not certain, but looks optimistic at this moment.” They questioned whether this indicated Lai closely followed the bill’s progress. Lai explained that Lee Wing-tat likely brought up the bill first, prompting him to ask Mark Simon for details before replying to Lee.

The prosecution also showed a message from Mark Simon to Lai, stating:

“The White House and the State Department also have a bias against anything that would upset China before a trade deal. But politically, the White House will not come out and oppose it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is basically hiding behind the ‘holds.’ Holds are anonymous and a long-time Senate tradition.”

The prosecution asked if Mark Simon was sharing insider information about various senators’ positions. Lai responded that he was unsure if it was insider information. When asked if Simon had close relationships with senators, Lai denied it, suggesting Simon might have obtained the information from individuals like Christian Whiton, a former senior advisor at the U.S. State Department. When pressed on whether Lai often received insider information from Simon, Lai said it wasn’t frequent but happened occasionally.


Judges Esther Toh and Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired about Mark Simon’s background, how he and Lai met, and Simon’s work. Lai described Simon as the president of a shipping company, a non-Chinese speaker, and a fellow Catholic whom he met at church. Lai said they had known each other for nearly 20–30 years, with Simon initially managing Lai’s personal investments.

Lai further mentioned that Simon once served as chairman of the Hong Kong branch of the Republican Party. When Judge D’Almada Remedios asked how Lai knew about Simon’s connections with U.S. senators, Lai believed it was a network Simon gradually developed.

The prosecution questioned whether Simon’s connections with the U.S. government stemmed from his affiliation with the Republican Party. Lai clarified that he never claimed Simon had close ties to the U.S. government, adding that Simon likely knew people like James Cunningham and Christian Whiton or others linked to the U.S. government.

The prosecution also asked if Simon had connections with the National Security Council. Lai expressed doubt, countering, “How would that be?” and clarified that Simon’s information likely came from former Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger.

15:25 Break

14:50 Prosecution questions Lai’s claim of disinterest in Hong Kong bill while advocating lobbying efforts

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s October 27, 2019, column What Americans Want to Say to Us in the “Success and Failure with A Laugh” section. Lai confirmed the article conveyed messages from Americans, structured in a Q&A format. The prosecution quoted the article:

Has the escalation of protest violence changed the U.S. political view on Hong Kong’s resistance?

They are very concerned. Just as Martin Luther King persisted in peaceful, rational, and nonviolent actions in the face of police brutality and succeeded, while Malcolm X’s advocacy for violence caused setbacks to the civil disobedience movement. They remind us not to escalate violence further. They understand Hong Kong youths are reacting to police brutality, making conflicts inevitable, but they caution against fatal violence, as it could reverse public sentiment and lead to the movement’s failure. They have urged everyone to stay rational, avoid escalating out of frustration over lack of immediate results, and remain on the moral high ground with patience. They believe U.S. sanctions on China can effectively pressure them, making universal suffrage in Hong Kong more hopeful. That is their advice to us.

The prosecution asked why Lai previously claimed disinterest in the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, yet the article conveyed that sanctions could be “effective pressure.” Lai responded that these were American suggestions. When asked if he believed these suggestions, Lai stated he was merely relaying messages. The prosecution argued that the article contradicted Lai’s testimony. Lai denied this, stating the article referred to sanctions, not the bill itself. The prosecution countered, noting the bill included sanctions. Lai reiterated his general lack of interest in legislation, often seeing bills pass without practical impact.

The prosecution then quoted another passage from the article:

Will the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act really sanction police, Regina Ip, and Junius Ho?

The bill has passed the House but awaits the Senate. This time we met with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and we are optimistic the bill will pass the Senate as long as we maintain our current efforts. While they didn’t specify details, the principle is clear: those responsible for injustice and violence must be held accountable and face consequences. Even if specific individuals like Ip or Ho are not included in the bill, the U.S. will likely target them through a blacklist.

What else can Hong Kongers do to gain U.S. and international support?

We must continue lobbying. Along with media reports, we need to showcase our morals, courage, and conscience, inspiring others to voice their support in their daily lives. Support will only grow as long as we do our part, using moral strength to awaken their conscience.

The prosecution asked if the phrase “maintain our current efforts” referred to protests. Lai explained it meant the demonstrations. When asked if it also pertained to the bill’s progress, Lai denied it. Regarding the statement that those responsible for injustice should face consequences, the prosecution asked if it meant lobbying for sanctions on Hong Kong and Chinese officials. Lai clarified that it referred to maintaining nonviolent protests to ensure accountability for wrongdoing.

Judge Alex Lee asked why Lai seemed aware of legislative developments at the time, as the article mentioned, “The bill has passed the House but awaits the Senate.” Lai explained he was informed of the situation while in the U.S.

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios referenced the article’s statement about meeting Mitch McConnell and optimism over the bill’s passage. She asked if Lai discussed the bill with McConnell. Lai stated that Martin Lee led the meeting, knowing McConnell personally, and Lai did not speak.

Judge Lee further questioned why Lai, if uninterested in the bill, would include it in the article. Lai replied that he mentioned it because it was raised in a question. When asked if he expected the bill’s sanctions to have an impact, Lai admitted optimism about the bill passing but not necessarily its effects.

The prosecution noted that Lai admitted support for the bill and a desire for its passage. They revisited the article’s suggestion to “continue lobbying.” Lai confirmed the article said so. When asked if lobbying included advocating for sanctions, Lai denied this. The prosecution insisted that Lai was lobbying for sanctions, but Lai rejected this claim.

14:32 Judges question Lai’s claim of disinterest in Hong Kong-related legislation mentioning sanctions

The prosecution continued to question Lai about the Apple Daily publication Summer of Freedom. They presented a message from Lai to Cheung Chi-wai, then chief of Apple Daily’s online news platform, on October 8, 2019. Lai forwarded a message from Lee Cheuk-yan, who mentioned his upcoming trips to the EU and France, asking Lai if he could provide an English version of Summer of Freedom. If unavailable, Lee asked for the Chinese version instead. Lai confirmed this. The prosecution asked if Lai instructed Cheung to handle the matter, and Lai agreed.

The prosecution then displayed a message from Lee Cheuk-yan to Lai on November 22, 2019. Lee mentioned that he would substitute Albert Ho for a trip to Milan and then to Australia to meet with lawmakers. He again inquired about Summer of Freedom. Lai confirmed sending another batch of the publication to Lee. The prosecution asked if Lee intended to distribute Summer of Freedom to Australian lawmakers. Lai responded that he was indifferent to the recipients, saying he would distribute the publication to whoever Lee intended.

The prosecution presented an October 19, 2019, message from Lai to Martin Lee, in which Lai forwarded Republican Congressman Kevin McCarthy’s schedule:

  • Leader’s Weekly Schedule
    • Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules:
      1. H.R 3289 – Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019
      2. H.R 4270 – PROTECT Hong Kong Act, as amended
      3. H.Res.543 – Recognizing Hong Kong’s bilateral relationship with the United States, condemning the interference of the People’s Republic of China in Hong Kong’s affairs, and supporting the people of Hong Kong’s right to protest, as amended

The prosecution noted that Lai forwarded this information to both Martin Lee and Albert Ho. Lai explained that he merely shared information they might find interesting. The prosecution asked if Lai himself was uninterested. Lai reiterated that he did not place much importance on the bills, believing they would pass but be forgotten without follow-up.

The prosecution argued that the passage of a bill inherently implies its effectiveness. Lai countered, “Somebody has to follow up to take the effect, right?” He added that such follow-up rarely occurs. Judge Esther Toh pointed out that subsequent events demonstrated that the bill was indeed followed up, as sanctions were implemented. Lai agreed that sanctions were later applied to Hong Kong and Chinese officials.

Judge Toh pressed further, asking, “Do you think you were wrong?” Lai replied, “I was wrong.”

The prosecution asked if Lai was aware at the time that sanctions were imposed on officials. Lai said he might have known but could not recall now. Judge Toh clarified, asking if Lai was aware that the bill sanctioned officials upon its passage in November 2019. Lai stated that he did not notice the sanctions at the time and only learned about them later.

Judge Alex Lee noted the widespread reporting of the sanctions at the time. Lai agreed but reiterated that he no longer remembered. Judge Lee then asked why Lai, who sought U.S. support for Hong Kong, was so disinterested in the legislation. “Your suggestions or requests were, in fact, heard by the U.S. government. Why were you so uninterested in this legislation?” Lai responded that he did not believe he initiated the sanctions, emphasizing his focus on freezing corrupt officials’ bank accounts.

The prosecution asked if Lai advocated for both sanctions and freezing corrupt accounts in June. Lai stated that he only focused on freezing corrupt accounts. The prosecution pointed out that following his request, the U.S. imposed sanctions on 42 Hong Kong and Chinese officials between August 2020 and July 2021. They asked if this indicated Lai’s interest at the time. Lai replied that he might have been interested but no longer remembered.

The prosecution concluded by asking if Lai knew the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act was related to sanctions. Lai admitted that he might have known.

13:02 Lunch

12:45 Lai claims disinterest in U.S. passing Hong Kong-related bills, says they lack practical effect

The prosecution presented a message from Mark Simon to Lai, stating:

“FYI: House will vote next week on HKHRDA and PROJECT Hong Kong Act.” 

Lai responded at the time: “Great!”

The prosecution asked if Lai knew the content of the bills. Lai stated he did not know the details. When the prosecution pointed out that the bills were related to sanctions, Lai said he could not remember because he was not interested in such bills. The prosecution further noted that before meeting Rick Scott, Lai had asked Mark Simon for the names of the bills. Lai explained that he asked just in case the topic came up during the meeting. When asked why he specifically inquired about the bills, Lai said it was because they were related to Hong Kong.

Judge Alex Lee raised questions, noting that Lai repeatedly claimed he wanted to know how the U.S. could help Hong Kong, and the messages discussed two bills reflecting U.S. action. Judge Lee asked why Lai did not want to know if these bills could help Hong Kong. Lai explained that he always considered such bills academic and lacking practical effect, as they were not followed up after passage.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned how Lai could know there would be no follow-up at the time. Lai responded that his view was based on previous experiences with other bills, where politicians seemed to lose interest after passing them. He reiterated that he generally knew the bills were related to human rights and protecting Hong Kong but did not know the details.

The prosecution noted that the bills were mentioned multiple times in Lai’s messages. Lai emphasized that he was not interested in the bills. Judge Alex Lee then asked why Lai did not tell Mark Simon to stop bringing up the bills if he was uninterested. Lai said it would have been impolite to do so.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios expressed skepticism, pointing out that Lai was planning to visit the U.S., and Mark Simon was informing him about relevant developments and bills. She questioned why Lai was disinterested. Lai reiterated that he believed the bills were ineffective and lacked substance.

When pressed further by Judge D’Almada Remedios, asking why Lai would not attempt to push the bills to make them effective, Lai replied that he did not believe he had the ability to do so.

Judge D’Almada Remedios then questioned Lai’s intent to meet high-ranking U.S. officials, including the President, asking, “How much higher can you go?” Lai dismissed the question, saying her reasoning was illogical.

12:30 Mark Simon suggests senior pro-democracy figures visit the U.S., criticizing younger representatives as appearing unserious

The prosecution presented a message from Mark Simon on September 17, 2019, sent in a group chat with Lai, Martin Lee, and James Cunningham:

Here I just wanted to make all aware that I don’t think the group of our young friends that have been going through New York and DC have been effective.
In fact friends of all ours at WSJ & NYT found the visitors to be somewhat unserious.
Joshua went to jail, so I have nothing but respect for him. But after listening to three groups of people who heard from them it is my belief that the “seniors” of the democratic movement need to come to the US and reassure the US that as one gent put it, “the eyes are on the prize.”
He is asking if HK remains focused on moving the ball forward universal suffrage, or are we going to hear visitors to DC justifying breaking up MTR stations.
No one gives short shift to the struggles of the Hong Kong people, but I think the seniors including Martin and Jimmy, who are on this message, need to show up in US at the suggested terms.
Usually I would say that’s just my opinion, but it’s not, as people asked me when are the Democracy stalwarts coming.

The prosecution asked who the “young friends” referred to in the message were. Lai said it might refer to representatives from the student community, specifically Cheung Kun-yang. The prosecution pointed out that the message also mentioned “Joshua” (Joshua Wong). Lai suggested it might refer to a group involving Joshua Wong.

The prosecution further inquired if the “seniors” in the message referred to Lai. Lai responded that it could refer to senior pro-democracy figures, such as Martin Lee, Albert Ho, and Lee Cheuk-yan.

Judge Esther Toh asked who the “prize” mentioned in the message referred to. Lai suggested it might refer to universal suffrage. Judge Toh asked, “No? So you don’t understand?” Lai admitted he did not fully understand.

The prosecution asked who the “he” in the message questioning whether Hong Kong remained focused on universal suffrage was. Lai said he did not know.

Regarding the statement “people asked me when the democracy stalwarts are coming,” the prosecution asked if this indicated that U.S. parties were eager to meet Lai and Martin Lee. Lai agreed, adding that it could also refer to other senior pro-democracy figures.

12:20 Judges ask if Mark Simon attending U.S. Senate hearing represented Lai; Lai says possibly, but he cannot speculate

The prosecution presented a message from Mark Simon on September 17, 2019, in a group chat with Lai, Martin Lee, and James Cunningham:

After speaking/seeing people that we met with last time, it is suggested the best days in DC are the evening of Monday Oct 21st to Thursday the 24th.
We are attempting to schedule everybody we saw last time but there is a much larger desire for all to see Pelosi and her team along with more Senators and staff. We will also be undertaking significant media in DC.
We will go Thursday night to New York where we have multiple meetings with media being set up.
I am advised that a moderately sized delegation of senior pro-democracy figures who will come on this trip would be most productive & meaningful.
I will address this in the next message.
I have been asked to be in DC to be present at the Senate hearings on East Asia Wednesday, as well as meeting on HK Democracy Act.
From this trip we hope to have word on Congressional delegations coming to HK in early October. Will update.

The prosecution asked Lai who informed Simon that “a moderately sized delegation of senior pro-democracy figures who will come on this trip would be most productive & meaningful.” Lai said he did not know. When asked who requested Simon’s attendance at the hearing, Lai also said he did not know.

The prosecution further inquired if Lai was aware of the development of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act at the time. Lai said he likely knew but could not recall, adding that he was not particularly focused on the bill. Judge Esther Toh pointed out that Lai was informed about the bill in the message. Lai agreed but referred to the bill as an “academic” issue to him.

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios asked about Simon’s role at the hearing. Lai said he did not know. Judge Toh asked if Simon, as Lai’s close aide, was representing him. Lai said it was possible but emphasized that the message did not mention this and that he could not speculate.

The prosecution asked whether Simon conveyed Lai’s ideas at the Senate hearing. Lai responded that he did not believe so. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned why the Senate would want to hear Simon’s views. Lai said he did not know. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Simon could have declined the invitation. Lai replied that one must be invited to attend such hearings. When asked why Simon attended the hearing, Lai said, “You’ve already asked me three times, and I’ve said I don’t know.”

Regarding the message stating, “From this trip we hope to have word on Congressional delegations coming to HK in early October,” the prosecution asked if Lai supported this idea. Lai said he supported it, though it was not explicitly shown in the message.

12:09 Lai says he knew U.S. lawmakers met with frontline individuals in Hong Kong but did not know Andy Li

Regarding the distribution of “The 2019 Summer of Freedom,” the prosecution stated that its witness, Chow Tat-kuen, testified that Mark Simon had collected over 2,000 copies of the publication from him. According to reports, Chow testified that the special issue aimed to “document what they believed to be police violence, attract readers, and garner more support.” Chow mentioned that Simon had requested “over 2,000 copies.”

The prosecution presented a tweet from Lai’s Twitter account dated October 8, 2020, where he retweeted an Apple Daily post featuring Benedict Rogers’ article, which stated: “After all, peacefully reading a newspaper is not a crime. It’s everyone’s right.” Lai confirmed that the individual holding “The 2019 Summer of Freedom” in the post was Rogers.

The prosecution noted that after Lai’s meeting with Rick Scott, Mark Simon told Lai: “Very much want to hand this to them,” and asked if “them” referred to Rick Scott and the consulate staff. Lai said it was likely referring to Rick Scott. Judge Alex Lee asked if Simon meant to give “The 2019 Summer of Freedom” to Rick Scott. Lai replied that he did not know and suggested it might have just been a magazine.

Judge Alex Lee further noted that Simon mentioned having visited four different locations, all of which had sold out. Lai agreed, saying it was likely referring to “The 2019 Summer of Freedom.”

In another message, Simon stated: “Jimmy, please thank Chiu for getting as close to me as he could. So they have papers and met front liners.”

Judge Esther Toh asked who the frontline individuals were. Lai said he did not know but believed Rick Scott met with young people and frontline protesters after meeting with him. Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai knew that Rick Scott had met with Andy Li and young frontline individuals after their meeting. Lai responded that he did not know Andy Li at the time.

Judge Lee then asked if Lai knew that Rick Scott would meet with frontline individuals after meeting him. Lai said he became aware of it only after reading Mark Simon’s message.

11:20 Break

11:12 Mark Simon says “movement publications” were popular and would be taken to Capitol Hill

The prosecution presented a message from September 21, 2019, in a WhatsApp group including Lai, Martin Lee, and James Cunningham. Mark Simon wrote: “Can I get 2500 of the special movement handouts……They are incredibly popular. I have over 100 requests.”

Simon also mentioned plans to take the publications to Capitol Hill and distribute them through Benedict Rogers, the founder of the UK-based human rights organization “Hong Kong Watch.” Lai stated in court that Simon had discussed this matter with Cheung Kim-hung and Chow Tat-kuen and informed him about it.

The prosecution presented the publication titled “The 2019 Summer of Freedom,” which was first released on September 20, 2019. Lai said that Simon had mentioned receiving over 100 inquiries about a publication just a day after its release but was unsure if it was “The 2019 Summer of Freedom” that Simon referred to.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios remarked that the situation also indicated Simon’s extensive connections.

10:50 Lai denies lobbying U.S. senators to support Hong Kong bill

Regarding Lai’s 2019 U.S. trip, the prosecution noted a message stating, “They agree to meet you.” Lai confirmed that then-Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Marco Rubio had agreed to meet but clarified that he ultimately only met with senior White House staff and did not meet U.S. President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai needed to discuss specific topics during these meetings. Lai responded that he did not, as the White House merely wanted to understand more about the situation in Hong Kong. The prosecution asked whether Lai had planned to meet with Trump or Pence. Lai denied having any such plans or expectations.

On September 23, 2019, Mark Simon messaged Lai, saying, “Senator Scott is coming, as you know. But now he wants to see you in person Sunday afternoon, the 29th, for a one-on-one.” The prosecution questioned whether this was related to Lai’s proposed fact-finding trip to Hong Kong. Lai clarified that Senator Rick Scott came to Hong Kong of his own accord, without any invitation from him, but confirmed that they met in Hong Kong alongside some consular officials.

A day before the meeting, Simon messaged Lai again: “Jimmy, tomorrow Senator Rick Scott at 1:45 pm in Mid-Levels. Driver Chiu has details.” Simon added, “He served two terms as governor of Florida. This is a very big deal as Florida is one of the big five states, which in U.S. politics gives him quite a bit of gravitas. He is a China hawk, as you may recall him from when we met him. As always, he will ask what it is we need here in Hong Kong from the U.S.”

The prosecution asked whether Rick Scott was a “China hawk.” Lai replied that Scott took a tough stance on China. When asked if he suggested any specific actions Scott should take for Hong Kong, Lai said he did not and did not recall discussing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked what Lai’s concerns were at the time. Lai explained that Scott was already informed about Hong Kong’s situation and that the discussion focused on what assistance could be provided. When asked what specific help he requested, Lai said he made no particular requests. Remedios expressed skepticism, stating it was unlikely Lai merely said, “Help us.” Lai responded that he could not remember and believed the conversation was not specific.

The prosecution pointed to a message from Lai to Simon before the meeting: “What’s the HK bill that just passed Congress and Senate called?” Simon responded: “It is the ‘Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.’” The prosecution suggested that Lai knew the bill’s content but had forgotten its name, asking Simon for clarification to discuss it with Scott. Lai stated that the bill was under deliberation at the time but denied lobbying for it, emphasizing that he was not involved in the legislative process.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned why Lai brought up the bill with Simon. Lai explained that he needed to know the bill’s name to be prepared for the meeting with Scott. When asked if he anticipated discussing the bill, Lai said he only wanted to be ready in case it came up. He added that he was not sure if asking about the bill was directly related to the meeting.

The prosecution alleged that Lai lobbied Rick Scott to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Lai claimed he did not remember and argued that he was not focused on the bill, as evidenced by his inability to recall its name.

10:30 Lai says U.S. trip aimed to lobby for Hong Kong support; judges question purpose after government suspended amendment

The prosecution inquired about Lai’s proposed fact-finding trip regarding Hong Kong. They referred to a WhatsApp group involving Lai, Mark Simon, Martin Lee Chu-ming, and James Cunningham, in which Mark Simon sent a message on September 23, 2019, updating the group about the October U.S. trip. He mentioned meetings with the editorial boards of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, stating, “We are going to work the Senate and House quite heavily.”

The prosecution asked if Mark Simon’s reference to “work the Senate and House” was related to the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Lai denied this, saying it referred to meetings with U.S. legislators. When asked about the purpose of the meetings, Lai responded that it was to inform them about the situation in Hong Kong. When asked if it was to lobby for support, Lai said yes.

The prosecution pressed further, asking what support he was seeking. Lai stated it was support for Hong Kong. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked about the specific purpose of the lobbying. Lai reiterated that it was to seek support for Hong Kong. When pressed on what kind of support, Lai mentioned speaking up for Hong Kong, encouraging action, or even visiting Hong Kong for inspections, given that the city was in crisis due to the extradition bill amendment.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned what crisis Lai referred to, as the government had already announced the suspension of the bill amendment. Lai explained that protests were still ongoing, and people were fighting for their rights under the Basic Law, including universal suffrage. When asked if it was about the Five Demands, Lai stated that these demands had not yet emerged at the time.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping also asked what specific support Lai was seeking. Lai reiterated it was support for Hong Kong’s freedom, universal suffrage, and fundamental rights. When Toh asked, “What else?”, Lai replied, “I think the problem was already big enough.”

The prosecution pointed out that Mark Simon’s message mentioned U.S. National Security Council staff meeting with Hong Kong student leaders. Toh asked who these student leaders were. Lai replied they were university students. When asked if he was referring to Sunny Cheung Kwan-yang, Lai confirmed that Cheung was one of the university leaders.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios noted that the message mentioned the Senate and House of Representatives and asked if this involved legislation. Lai denied any such involvement, saying, “There was nothing like this going on at the time.” The prosecution, however, pointed out that the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act was introduced in June 2019 and passed in November, meaning the bill was under deliberation in September. Lai responded that this was a matter for U.S. legislators and not something he was involved in.

The prosecution highlighted the phrase “We are going to work the Senate and House quite heavily” in the message and questioned whether Lai had pushed for the act. Lai firmly denied ever working on promoting the act. When the prosecution asked, “You never work on this but you want them to work on this?” Lai denied the accusation.

10:08 Lai says former Next Magazine president Yeung Wai-hong was not involved in the U.S. trip
Following the evidence presented by the prosecution on Wednesday, which showed a message Mark Simon forwarded to Lai on October 8, 2019, stating:

“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…

AS SO WONDER IF JIMMY SHOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE “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 ton worry about politics.” Something like that.”

The prosecution had questioned on Wednesday whether the mention of “Hong” referred to a speech at the Hoover Institution. Lai denied this, adding that former Next Magazine president Yeung Wai-hong and Mark Simon were not involved in this matter.

On Thursday, the prosecution further inquired if Yeung Wai-hong was connected to the 2019 U.S. trip. Lai stated that Yeung was not involved in any way, did not know former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz or retired General and former Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, but noted it was unclear if Yeung had met former U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong James Cunningham as they might have encountered each other at some events.

The prosecution presented three photographs dated May 11-14, 2017. The first photo showed Yeung Wai-hong with Lai and The Wall Street Journal editor Bill McGurn. The second photo included Yeung, Lai, former South China Morning Post editor-in-chief Mark Clifford, James Cunningham, and Paul Wolfowitz. Upon seeing the photo, Lai remarked, “Oh, so he met Paul.” The third photo featured Paul Wolfowitz, Jack Keane, and Lai.

The prosecution pointed out that Yeung was not in the third photo. Lai speculated that Yeung might have been the one taking the picture. Lai confirmed all three photos were taken in the U.S. but stated they were unrelated to lobbying activities and were merely social gatherings.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned Lai’s earlier assertion that Yeung had never met Paul Wolfowitz or Jack Keane. Lai responded that he had forgotten about this social gathering and explained that Yeung happened to be in the U.S. at the time, so he invited him to join the gathering.

10:05 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