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

Show your support by using the hashtag #FreeJimmyLai

Day 125: January 24, 2025

The Witness: Live Updates | Day 125 of Jimmy Lai’s Trial: Lai Says Photo with U.S. Senator Holding “Stand with HK” Shirt Was Courtesy, Unaware of Content

Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, faces charges of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses. The 125th day of his trial began Friday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, temporarily acting as the High Court. It marked Lai’s 33rd day on the stand and the seventh day of cross-examination by the prosecution.

Prosecutors presented a phone message indicating that Lai met U.S. Senator Rick Scott in October 2019. A photo showed Lai and Scott standing together, holding a black shirt with the phrase “Stand With Hong Kong” (“Free Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times”) printed on it.

The prosecution questioned Lai about the purpose of holding the shirt for the photo. Lai explained that Scott used the shirt as a prop, and Lai held it out of politeness, without paying attention to the text.

Judge Esther Toh asked whether Lai would still hold the shirt if it had depicted a nude woman. Lai declined to answer the hypothetical question. Toh expressed skepticism, suggesting Lai must have known the meaning of the text. Lai maintained he did not need to know its content and reiterated that he acted out of courtesy. Judge Alex Lee further asked if Lai would have held the shirt had he been aware of its message. Lai agreed he would have.

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

16:32 Court Adjourns

15:58 Lai Says Agreement to Revoke Hong Kong’s Special Status Stems from Pessimism

The prosecution cited a message Lai sent to a group on May 29, 2020, stating, “Punish China is the only way to stop the crisis.” On the same day, James Cunningham messaged the group, stating, “I am in contact with State and with the Biden campaign and Carnegie Endowment. Will have discussion with Carnegie tomorrow I hope…Guiding principle is punishing China, not HK. But up to Trump in the end and he seems to want something soon.” Lai explained that the Carnegie Endowment is a think tank-like organization.

The prosecution suggested that Cunningham appeared to provide insider information. Lai countered that Cunningham was merely passing on information from the Biden team. The prosecution questioned whether the message echoed Lai’s earlier statement about punishing China. Lai responded that it wasn’t necessarily an echo, as similar opinions were widely shared at the time.

Later, Lai replied, “I agree. Punish China not hurting HK. More HK is hurt less value to China easier for them to give up. China needs HK as a channel to outside at its economic worst.” The prosecution asked whether Lai sought to preserve Hong Kong’s role as a channel for China. Lai confirmed, stating that Hong Kong has always served as such a channel. When asked if Lai wanted to protect Hong Kong’s special status, he agreed.

The prosecution then pointed out a shift in Lai’s stance after the enactment of the National Security Law, quoting a message from Lai to Mark Simon on July 15, 2020: “I said that it’s not necessary to revoke the special status of HK because with national security law HK is finished anyway. The point is not HK but China. Sanction China as to stop it from clamping down on HK. But after I thought about it, I think they’re right to revoke HK’s special status, because once US and China decoupled HK would be a way out for China. To close this outlet of China would force it to come to terms easier to demands of US.”

The prosecution suggested that Lai subsequently agreed with revoking Hong Kong’s special status and questioned whether his stance became more radical. Lai described it as a pessimistic shift.

When the prosecution asked if Lai disregarded Hong Kong’s interests, Lai stated that Hong Kong was already “finished” and had no interests left to protect. The prosecution pointed out that Lai suggested sacrificing Hong Kong’s interests could compel China to comply with U.S. demands. Lai explained that if the U.S. decoupled from China, closing Hong Kong as a channel could pressure China. When pressed about his efforts to protect Hong Kong’s interests, Lai countered, “If Hong Kong is already finished, what interests are there to protect?”

The prosecution further questioned whether Lai was indifferent to revoking Hong Kong’s special status. Lai confirmed, adding that it was the prosecution’s interpretation to say it was to meet U.S. demands. Finally, the prosecution suggested that this aligned with the “scorched-earth” concept of mutual destruction (“攬炒”). Lai disagreed, stating that this situation was not self-sacrifice by Hong Kong but a consequence of the National Security Law.

The prosecution also cited a May 29, 2020, message from Mark Simon about congressional discussions, stating, “In terms of HK action, best reception was for a limited sanction list on HK individuals. Thoughts from House GOP member was to make it hurt, but make it limited in scope, maybe 10-15 individuals. Get it done quickly is goal. As for China, lots of support for sanction on CCP members.” The prosecution asked if this reflected the views of U.S. House members. Lai said he could not confirm.

The court adjourned until February 3, after the Lunar New Year. Judge Esther Toh extended New Year wishes to the legal teams, and the prosecution reciprocated with wishes for health and a prosperous year.

15:35 Break

15:20 Lai Says Promoting Immigration Sends Wrong Message, Advocates Punishing China to Stop Crisis

The prosecution presented a message from Mark Simon on May 29, 2020, in a WhatsApp group named “DCDems,” where Simon stated, “One thing did come up and I’d like Paul and Jim to comment. Pushing for immigration reform to allow Hong Kong people into the US in large numbers is seen as surrender by many in the administration. In other words, we’re sending a message to cut and run. Also, there is a belief that this type of program never helps the people who stay and fight, just the marginal people who want to get out. And would’ve left anyway if they had a chance.”

The prosecution asked if Simon was seeking opinions from Paul Wolfowitz and James Cunningham. Lai explained that Simon likely shared the message because he thought the two might have an interest in commenting.

The prosecution highlighted another message from Simon stating, “Part two, is I really think we need to reach out to more democratic-leaning think tanks and especially people who are key movers in the Bible campaign.” When asked who “we” referred to, Lai said it meant Hong Kong people, including himself.

The prosecution further presented a message Lai sent to the group, which echoed the contents of an email he had sent to Jack Keane two days earlier on May 27. Lai wrote, “I think the most sanction at this initial stage is to freeze the bank account of China officials’ corrupted money in the US and Europe. Rescinding the HK bill destroyed the residue value of HK and hurts only HK people, since obviously Xi has given up HK. I agree pushing for immigration politically is not a good message. Punish China is the only way to stop the crisis.”

The prosecution suggested that Lai’s overall idea was to punish China. Lai responded that he wasn’t asserting an overarching strategy.

Judge Alex Lee asked if both Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz were Republicans. Lai said yes. The prosecution noted that Lai mentioned sanctions and freezing bank accounts in his communications with Keane. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then showed a June 1, 2020, message from Simon to Lai, which stated, “He [Paul] is also talking with the NSC about targeted sanctions on mainland Chinese leaders, in particular, he wants to open up their bank accounts. By that, I mean, he wants them to be looked at on corruption charges.”

The prosecution asked if Paul Wolfowitz was acting on Lai’s idea of freezing the overseas bank accounts of corrupt Chinese officials. Lai responded that Wolfowitz wasn’t putting it into action but was trying to help. The prosecution suggested that Wolfowitz was following Lai’s ideas. Lai reiterated that Wolfowitz was only trying to assist.

When asked why Wolfowitz could discuss sanctions with the National Security Council (NSC), Lai explained that as a former deputy defense secretary, Wolfowitz likely had many connections within the NSC. The prosecution questioned whether Wolfowitz’s discussions about sanctions and opening bank accounts constituted directing the NSC’s work. Lai replied that Wolfowitz was not issuing directives but merely offering suggestions.

The prosecution further suggested that Wolfowitz might have been making a request, but Lai insisted that “suggestion” was a more appropriate term.

Judge Alex Lee reminded the prosecution to establish the authenticity of the content related to Wolfowitz, and Judge Esther Toh pointed out that Lai lacked direct knowledge of the matter.

15:05 Messages Show Mark Simon Discussed Sanctions with “Mid-Level People”

The prosecution presented evidence that Mark Simon created a WhatsApp group named “DCDems” on May 29, 2020. The group included Lai, Paul Wolfowitz, and James Cunningham. Judge Alex Lee expressed curiosity, noting that two days earlier, Jack Keane had suggested switching from WhatsApp to Signal for security reasons, yet Simon created a new group with nearly identical members shortly after.

Lai stated he didn’t know why Simon created the group or ignored Keane’s advice. When the prosecution asked if the group’s name referred to “DC Democracy,” indicating democratic work related to Washington, Lai said he didn’t know.

In one of Simon’s messages, he wrote, “Strongly agree on visa, officials, families, universities, etc… Dear All, above is communication with David Feith at State.” The prosecution asked who David Feith was. Lai said Feith had worked at The Wall Street Journal, but he wasn’t familiar with him.

The prosecution noted that Feith worked for the U.S. government from 2017 to 2021 and was involved in Indo-Pacific strategy and China policy. Lai replied that he was unaware of this. When asked why Simon shared this information in the group, Lai suggested it was to provide updates.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Feith’s agreement on visas and other matters resulted from Simon asking for his opinion. Lai interpreted it as Simon appearing to have communicated with State Department officials.

The prosecution highlighted another message from Simon on the same day, stating, “Yesterday 5pm call with Pompeo & friendly press was all about how China had Violated Hong Kong autonomy. And there is a 6PM call tonight with some more mid-level people about sanctions”

The prosecution questioned whether Simon had spoken with Pompeo on May 28. Lai clarified that Simon was likely referring to a press conference. Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai was aware of the “May 28 Decision”, which preceded the National Security Law. Lai replied, “I have no sense of it.” The prosecution, however, referenced Lai’s prior testimony confirming he had read the decision.

When asked about the “mid-level people” mentioned in Simon’s message, Lai said he didn’t know but speculated it might refer to government staff at a press briefing. The prosecution noted Simon wrote, “I was just invited to it,” and questioned why Simon was invited to such discussions. Lai responded, “How would I know?”

14:45 Lai Accuses Prosecution of “Arbitrary” Questioning; Anthony Chau Responds: “I’m Just Based on the Record”

The prosecution continued presenting evidence, including an email sent by Jack Keane to Lai and others on July 9, 2020, referencing an article titled “Hong Kongers Say Taiwan Is Their First Choice as Exile Looms.” Lai replied, “That’s true.” The prosecution asked if Lai agreed with the content of the article, and Lai confirmed that Taiwan was indeed the top choice for Hong Kongers seeking to emigrate.

In another email, Lai stated, “With US greater military support, people feel more secure to live and invest in Taiwan.” Lai explained in court that his response was about immigration, noting that increased U.S. military protection made people feel safer, which is why Taiwan became a preferred destination for Hong Kong emigrants. The prosecution pointed out that the article did not mention “US greater military support.” Lai clarified that his response was not directly related to the article.

The prosecution asked if Lai was advocating for increased U.S. military support for Taiwan. Lai reiterated that he was merely explaining why Hong Kongers felt Taiwan was a secure option. The prosecution further suggested that this aligned with Lai’s 2019 remarks to John Bolton regarding Taiwan. Lai countered that these developments were already occurring at the time. When the prosecution suggested that Lai wanted such actions to continue, Lai denied it, stating that he was only explaining why Taiwan felt safer for residents and investors.

At one point, Lai said to prosecutor Anthony Chau, “The truth seems to have no bearing on you, Mr. Chau. You’re so creative.” Chau responded, “No, I’m just based on the record.” Lai said, “You’re so free, you’re great as a prosecutor.”

The prosecution then asked if Lai believed it was necessary to counterbalance China’s “belligerence.” Lai replied, “I’m not going to respond to words that you put into my mouth.” When Judge Esther Toh repeated the question, Lai stated his disagreement.

14:32 Lai Confirms Expectation for Trump to Take Concrete Actions, Including Sanctions Against China

The prosecution presented an email sent by Lai to Jack Keane on May 27, 2020, which stated:

“In my opinion, termination of HK Human Rights and Democracy Act hurt only HK’s residue value as perceived by CCP and is of little effect to hinder their action. The most effective way is to freeze the bank accounts of Chinese officials’ corrupted money in U.S. and West. All the top officials will so be scared that they may try to delay the imposition of the HK National Security Law.”

Jack Keane had replied, expressing agreement.

In another email, Jack Keane suggested switching to Signal for communication. The email was also copied to Lai and others. The prosecution asked whether Lai had communicated with Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, and James Cunningham via Signal. Lai stated he did not recall doing so with Jack Keane or Paul Wolfowitz but confirmed using Signal to communicate with James Cunningham. When asked if he had spoken to Jack Keane by phone, Lai denied it. Regarding Paul Wolfowitz, Lai stated that any discussions would have been related to family or personal matters.

The prosecution further presented an email from Lai to Mark Simon, which stated:
“That will push Trump to do real things instead of Biden’s rhetoric. Trump can use series of sanctions and punishments on China as his pre-election brainstorming when Biden can only talks. That makes a big difference.”

The prosecution asked if Lai expected Trump to take actions such as imposing sanctions and punishing China. Lai confirmed this.

12:58 Lunch

12:35 Lai States Freezing Corrupt Officials’ Bank Accounts More Effective Than Passing Legislation

The prosecution presented a May 27, 2020, email from Jack Keane to Lai, Mark Simon, Paul Wolfowitz, and Rupert Hammond-Chambers, titled “FOXB INTERVIEW,” which stated:
“Jimmy, Wonderful interview on Maria B this morning. You put the real issue of HK’s existence as we know it and freedom on the table.”

On the same day, another email from Jack Keane referenced a Bloomberg article titled “U.S. Weighs Sanctions on Chinese Officials, Firm Over Hong Kong.” The prosecution suggested that Jack Keane was providing Lai with information about U.S. considerations at the time. Lai agreed.

The prosecution noted that the article mentioned the U.S. Treasury considering measures such as restricting Chinese transactions and freezing assets of Chinese officials and companies, which aligned with Lai’s ideas. Lai responded that these were not only his views but were also discussed in the media. When asked if the article mentioned visa restrictions, Lai clarified that his suggestion referred to visas for officials’ children, while the article referred to visas for officials.

The prosecution then presented Lai’s response to Jack Keane, which read:
“In my opinion, termination of HK Human Rights and Democracy Act hurts only HK’s residue value as perceived by CCP and is of little effect to hinder their action. The most effective way is to freeze the bank accounts of Chinese officials’ corrupted money in the U.S. and West. All the top officials will be so scared that they may try to delay the imposition of the HK National Security Law.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai believed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act was insufficient. Lai explained that he meant it would harm Hong Kong’s residual value in the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios asked why Lai said the act had “little effect to hinder their action.” Lai reiterated that, as he had stated earlier, once legislation was passed, it often lacked follow-up and posed risks of lowering Hong Kong’s perceived value.

When asked whether Lai agreed that freezing bank accounts and imposing sanctions were effective, he confirmed. Judge D’Almada Remedios queried whether the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act permitted the U.S. to sanction Hong Kong or China. Lai responded that it was likely Hong Kong. She then asked how Lai knew the act was not highly effective. Lai said he initially did not know the act included sanctions.

The prosecution inquired why Lai considered it ineffective. Lai reiterated his belief that without follow-up, the act would lack impact, and freezing Chinese officials’ bank accounts would be more effective. The prosecution noted that Lai had previously agreed that the act resulted in sanctions, suggesting it was effective.

Judge Alex Lee questioned whether the prosecution was implying a connection between the act and subsequent sanctions. Judge D’Almada Remedios pointed out that the act was passed in 2019, with sanctions implemented in 2020, suggesting other laws might have been involved. The prosecution acknowledged the Hong Kong Autonomy Act and executive orders signed by President Trump but maintained that the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act facilitated sanctions.

Judge D’Almada Remedios asked whether the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act specifically targeted Hong Kong officials and not mainland officials. The prosecution said further research is needed. Judge D’Almada Remedios told the prosecution that he may have to consult expert reports for clarity.

12:20 Lai Acknowledges U.S. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense’s Email Suggesting Sanctioning Judge Kwok Wai-kin

The prosecution presented an email dated May 3, 2020, from Paul Wolfowitz to Mark Simon and Christian Whiton, with a copy sent to Lai and Jack Keane. The email stated:

“My original question about Magnitsky was inspired by this blatantly biased Hong Kong judge WK Kwok. How can these be any rule of law or compliance with the handover treaty. (It was a treaty and registered as such at the UN. I believe if the officers of the law behave like this. Even though he may seem like small fry, the big shots can afford to slung off Magnitsky threats and it may be more effective to go after the guys who carry out their orders. That might also have a more direct impact of the behaviour of the Hong Kong courts.

The email attached information about Kwok Wai-kin’s remarks during the trial of a pro-China defendant in the Tseung Kwan O Lennon Wall attack case, in which Kwok described the defendant as having “noble sentiments” and expressed sympathy for him while extensively criticizing the protesters. The prosecution suggested that Paul Wolfowitz was indicating that Kwok Wai-kin should be sanctioned, and Lai confirmed this interpretation. When asked if he agreed, Lai stated that he did not express any opinion since the email was not addressed to him.

The prosecution then showed a May 27 email from Jack Keane, addressed to Lai, Mark Simon, and others. The email referred to Lai’s interview with Fox Business Network the previous day. The prosecution quoted from the interview where Lai discussed how the National Security Law undermined Hong Kong’s rule of law, and he mentioned that President Trump indicated there would be severe consequences if the law was enacted. When asked about changing the Chinese Communist Party, Lai mentioned sanctions, including freezing corrupt funds in U.S. accounts and halting technology transfers to China.

The prosecution questioned whether Lai’s interview was intended to attract the attention of foreign politicians. Lai replied that he was merely discussing the situation in Hong Kong and its challenges. The prosecution suggested that Lai wanted the international community to understand his requests. Lai denied making any specific requests.

The prosecution referenced Lai’s email reply to Jack Keane the day after the interview, stating:
“General, It’s so kind of you. Your help at this issue is crucial. With the HK National Security act clamp-downed on us we’ve no way out but help from America, especially President Trump.”

The prosecution asked about the “help” mentioned in the email. Lai explained that it referred to general assistance. When pressed on why Jack Keane’s help was “especially crucial,” Lai cited the National Security Law. The prosecution then inquired if the “help” referred to the Magnitsky Act. Lai denied this, reiterating that it referred to general assistance and adding that he did not know what President Trump could do.

Judge Esther Toh followed up, suggesting that one possible form of U.S. assistance was implementing sanctions. Lai agreed but noted that other actions could also be taken and said he could not recall his thoughts at the time. The prosecution pointed out that Lai’s interview the day before explicitly mentioned sanctions and that the “help” referenced in the email the following day clearly referred to sanctions. Lai disagreed, questioning why it should be considered obvious. The prosecution maintained that the assistance Lai referred to was sanctions, but Lai denied this assertion.

11:39 Break

11:30 Email Shows Lai Described the U.S. as “Savior”; Lai: Hoped for U.S. Assistance

The prosecution presented an email in which Lai replied to Paul Wolfowitz, stating, “America is our only savior now. If America doesn’t act we will be done very soon.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was referring to action under the Magnitsky Act. Lai responded that he might have been referring to general actions. The prosecution pointed out that the email was a reply to one titled Magnitsky Act. Lai maintained that he did not specifically mention the Magnitsky Act. When asked about his description of the U.S. as a savior, Lai explained, “I was hoping the U.S. could help because no one else cared about Hong Kong.”

The prosecution inquired whether Lai sought the implementation of the Magnitsky Act. Lai denied making such a statement.

Separately, the prosecution presented an email dated May 3, 2020, from Christian Whiton to Mark Simon and Paul Wolfowitz, titled Re: Magnitsky Act, which mentioned “Luo Huining, the new boss of the Liaison Office.” The prosecution asked if Whiton was suggesting sanctions against Luo Huining. Lai stated that Whiton did not mention the Magnitsky Act and that he did not know what the term “Glomax” in the email referred to.

The prosecution noted that Lai replied to Whiton with “Great idea.” Lai clarified that his response was merely an expression of encouragement and appreciation. Judge Alex Lee questioned whether Whiton was employed by Lai at the time, to which Lai confirmed, explaining that Whiton assisted in introducing U.S. lawmakers to him. Judge Lee remarked that Whiton appeared to be providing advice. Lai replied that Whiton was offering suggestions proactively.

11:15 Judges Question Whether Mark Simon Acted on Lai’s Behalf; Lai: “He Acted Alone for My Benefit”

The prosecution presented an email from Mark Simon responding to Paul Wolfowitz:
“No and I don’t see anything common. We had a conversation last week with Senator staff, and it’s their belief that until we actually see some convictions or some actual changes nothing will happen, which I think is not a bad idea because we really can’t do anything until they do something. Just arresting people is not enough in my mind. With all that said I know the Nsc does have a pretty good idea of who they would not object to being hit with the Magnitsky Act.”

The prosecution asked if the conversation Simon mentioned was one that included Lai. Lai responded that it was not, clarifying that the email referred to Simon’s discussion with Senate staff. When asked about Simon’s connections to the U.S. government and National Security Council (NSC), and whether Simon reported back to him, Lai stated that Simon shared information with several people, including himself.

When pressed about the meaning of “convictions or changes,” Lai said, “Convictions are convictions, and changes are changes.” Judge Alex Lee asked whether Lai understood “convictions” to refer to legal convictions in court, and Lai confirmed this understanding. Judge Lee further asked whether Simon, as Lai’s assistant, acted on Lai’s behalf when communicating with the NSC and Senate staff. Lai replied, “He acted on his own, but for my benefit.”

Lai elaborated that part of the reason people were willing to communicate with Simon was his role as Lai’s assistant. Judge Lee asked again if Simon represented Lai in such communications. Lai agreed but emphasized, “These were his own connections, not mine.”

When asked about his relationships with John Bolton and Jack Keane, Lai described them as friends. Regarding James Cunningham, Lai confirmed that Cunningham was also a friend. The prosecution pointed out that recipients of the email included Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane, who were advisors to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and also concerned about Hong Kong. Lai explained that their interest in Hong Kong stemmed from their friendship and their concern for the situation in the city.

Judge Esther Toh asked when Wolfowitz and Keane started showing interest in Hong Kong. Lai said it was when Hong Kong was in turmoil. Judge Lee inquired if this started in 2019, and Lai agreed. Asked whether their interest continued in 2020, Lai replied that they likely still cared but could not recall if there was any direct exchange aside from discussions during the Live Chat With Jimmy Lai program.

The prosecution highlighted Simon’s mention of the NSC’s clear understanding, suggesting that Simon had access to insider information. Lai said he did not ask Simon who he was referring to in the NSC, as he was not interested. When questioned why Simon discussed the Magnitsky Act with the NSC, Lai said he did not know and did not ask.

The prosecution noted that four months after this email, on August 7, 2020, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Hong Kong and Chinese officials under the Hong Kong Autonomy Act. This suggested that Simon had close ties to the NSC and access to insider information. Lai countered that having access to insider information did not necessarily mean Simon had close ties to the NSC.

11:00 Lai Says He Had General Understanding of the Magnitsky Act Relating to Sanctions, but Unaware of Details

The prosecution presented Lai’s email contact list, which included his assistant Mark Simon, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, retired General and former Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, president of the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council Rupert Hammond-Chambers, Wall Street Journal editor Bill McGurn, scholar Perry Link, former U.S. State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton, and Next Magazine president Yeung Wai-hong.

Regarding the contact Scott Fugel, Lai stated he could not recall the individual. The prosecution clarified that Fugel was Jack Keane’s assistant, and Lai acknowledged this. As for Pansy Hoi, Lai said he did not remember.

The prosecution displayed a April 24, 2020, email from Paul Wolfowitz to Mark Simon, Christian Whiton, and Rupert Hammond-Chambers, with copies sent to Lai and Jack Keane, titled “Magnitsky Act,” stating:
“Has anything been done about Magnitsky Act re HK?”
The email also included a screenshot of a Twitter post that read:
“@UNHumanRights @WilsonLeungWS Talk is cheap. China and HKGov’t won’t care this at all if no action is made. Sanction CCP and HK officials is a way to stop them suppressing pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. #MagnitskyAct #StandWithHongKong.”

The prosecution asked if Lai knew what the Magnitsky Act was. Lai replied that he did. When the prosecution pointed out that it was a law targeting individuals involved in human rights violations, Lai responded, “You’re telling me now, so now I know.” When pressed further, Lai repeated the same answer. Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai was aware of the Magnitsky Act, and Lai agreed but added that he did not know who it targeted.

When asked about his understanding of sanctions, Lai said he generally knew the Magnitsky Act related to sanctions. The prosecution asked who the sanctions targeted, and Lai reiterated that he had not delved into the details. Judge Esther Toh inquired about Lai’s understanding of which parts the sanctions applied to, and Lai replied that he had a general understanding.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked Lai what sanctions were. Lai responded, “Sanctions are sanctions.” The prosecution pressed the same question, and Lai repeated his answer. When the prosecution noted that Lai had not explained, Lai said, “How can I explain?”

The prosecution asked if sanctions were punitive measures. Lai agreed. When asked if sanctions punished individuals, Lai said they might punish countries or organizations. Finally, when asked how sanctions were implemented, Lai said he had not thought about it in detail.

10:50 Prosecution Suggests U.S. National Security Council Intended to Meet Lai; Lai Denies Meeting and Says He Was Unaware

The prosecution referred to a message from Mark Simon on September 23, 2019, in which he stated:
“WH NSC say they would be happy to see you/Martin, who else you bring. But no one will confirm whether the President or VP will be around & what day is available (very normal).”
Lai confirmed the content of the message.

The prosecution asked if the National Security Council (NSC) planned to meet Lai at the time. Lai responded that such a claim was the prosecution’s speculation. When further questioned whether the NSC was aware of Lai’s U.S. trip and looked forward to meeting him, Lai acknowledged that they were aware of his visit but stated that no meeting occurred.

The defense interjected, clarifying that while the NSC anticipated Lai’s visit to the U.S., it did not imply a planned meeting with the NSC. The prosecution then asked if Lai ultimately met with any NSC staff. Lai denied this but admitted to having met with former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger.

Judge Alex Lee inquired about John Bolton, the then-National Security Advisor who left his position in September 2019. Lai confirmed having met Bolton but was unsure if Bolton was a member of the NSC at the time. When the prosecution asked whether Bolton later became part of the NSC, Lai agreed. The prosecution pointed out that the NSC advises the U.S. president on military and political issues. Lai said he was not concerned with the NSC’s responsibilities, reiterating that if someone wanted to meet him, he would attend without focusing on the NSC’s role.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked about the message indicating the NSC was pleased to meet Lai. Lai replied that the NSC showed interest in him, but he did not reciprocate. Judge Alex Lee asked whether Lai prepared for such meetings. Lai said that he never prepared for meetings.

The prosecution questioned if Lai prepared for his meeting with then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Lai explained that Pompeo’s assistant, Mary Kissel, had briefed him on how to communicate during the meeting, so he did not personally prepare.

When the prosecution inquired about the NSC’s involvement in U.S. sanction policies, Lai said he did not know. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai was curious about why the NSC wanted to meet him. Lai replied, “Anybody wants to see me, then see me.”

Finally, the prosecution asked why Lai met with John Bolton. Lai explained that he wished to talk with Bolton and described him as a friend.

10:40 Lai Held a “Stand with Hong Kong” Shirt in a Photo with U.S. Senator, Citing Courtesy and Unawareness of the Slogan

The prosecution questioned Jimmy Lai about his meetings during his U.S. visit in October 2019. Lai confirmed he had met with Senator Rick Scott and, alongside Martin Lee, also met then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. The prosecution presented a photo shared by Martin Lee on October 24 in a group chat, showing Lai and Rick Scott holding a black shirt with the slogan “Stand with Hong Kong (Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times).”

Lai stated that the shirt did not belong to him but to Rick Scott. When asked about the purpose of holding the shirt for the photo, Lai explained that it was Rick Scott holding the shirt as a prop for the photo. The prosecution asked if Rick Scott supported the slogan on the shirt. Lai replied that the prosecution should ask Rick Scott. When further asked if Lai himself supported the slogan, he claimed he did not know what the words on the shirt said.

Judge Esther Toh questioned Lai, pointing out that he was holding the shirt at the time. Lai said that he did so out of courtesy, adding, “You think I have to scrutinize everything there?”

Judge Toh posed a hypothetical question, asking if Lai would still hold the shirt if it featured an image of a nude woman. Lai responded that he would not answer hypothetical questions. Judge Toh expressed skepticism, asserting that Lai must have known the meaning of the words on the shirt. Lai reiterated that he did not need to know the content and maintained that he held the shirt purely out of politeness.

Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai would still hold the shirt out of courtesy even if he knew the words’ meaning. Lai said yes.

10:30 Lai Says Trump Signing the Bill Was “Wherewithal” for Hong Kong to Resist Erosion of Freedom

The prosecution quoted Jimmy Lai’s message on November 28, 2019, in a communication group with Mark Simon, Martin Lee, and James Cunningham:

“Trump knows how powerful HK is as a leverage for his trade deal and beyond. He’s determined it’s a long fight with China. The new Cold War has just unfolded officially. HK has gathered more wherewithal for its resistance. The world is standing closer to us.”

The prosecution asked what Lai meant by “wherewithal” (capital). Lai said that if Trump signed the bill in support of Hong Kong, that would be the “wherewithal.” The prosecution inquired if it was meant to resist China. Lai clarified that it was to resist the erosion of freedom.

The prosecution also referenced another message from Lai in the same group:

“One other nice thing. White House NSC staff is seeing the HK College leaders who are in town. Sunny Cheung will take group in. (That’s good for them and HK).”

The prosecution asked if Lai went with Sunny Cheung to the National Security Council (NSC). Lai denied it, stating that he had never met Sunny Cheung in the U.S. He added that the message, dated September 21, was sent while he was likely still in Hong Kong.

10:15 Prosecution: How Did Mark Simon Know When Trump Would Sign the Bill?

The prosecution questioned the relationship between Jimmy Lai’s assistant Mark Simon and the U.S. National Security Council, citing a message Simon sent on November 28, 2019, to Lai, Martin Lee, and former U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong James Cunningham. Simon stated, “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 pressed on how Simon seemed to know when Trump decided to sign the bill. Lai responded that he believed a member of the National Security Council had informed Simon but emphasized it was only speculation. When asked further if Lai knew why Simon had such close ties with the National Security Council, Lai replied that he did not think Simon had a close relationship with the council, only that Simon had attended meetings. He added that Simon never explained how he knew about Trump’s decision timeline.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai found this lack of interest unusual. Lai countered by asking why it should matter. Toh questioned why Lai, as Simon’s employer, would not be curious about Simon’s high-level connections. Lai replied that Simon provided him with information, and he was satisfied with it, adding, “You may have such curiosity, but that doesn’t mean I have it.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai trusted Simon’s information at the time, and Lai confirmed that he did.

The prosecution further questioned whether Simon’s apparent knowledge of Trump’s signing decision meant Simon had communicated with the U.S. government or even Trump himself. Lai reiterated that he did not know and only received the information Simon provided. Judge Toh asked if Lai had previously claimed that Simon’s information might have come from former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger. Lai confirmed this but clarified that it was merely his speculation, as Pottinger was part of the National Security Council and knew Simon.

10:14 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