Jimmy Lai Trial: A Simple "I Don't Remember" Reveals the Collapse of Lai's Credibility

The trial of Jimmy Lai continues, and today's proceedings focused on his meeting with then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in July 2019. Lai and his legal team put on quite a show. A simple "I don't remember" not only failed to conceal his contradictory statements but also profoundly revealed his lack of credibility and his attempt to mislead the court.

Lai's lawyer asked if he had mentioned sanctions to Pompeo. Lai quickly and decisively stated that he hadn't (Actually I did not mention anything about sanction during meeting if I remember correctly). Clearly, Lai attempted to convey to the court and the public that he hadn't suggested sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials to US officials. This statement seemed cautious and aimed to create an image of honesty. However, this flimsy disguise was shattered by his own lawyer.

Lai's defense lawyer then presented an article published in Apple Daily on July 25, 2019, which reported on Lai's appearance on a online program (an interview with Albert Ho). In the interview, Lai revealed that Pompeo had asked, "What can the US do?", to which Lai responded, "The US can sanction the Hong Kong and mainland leaders who are suppressing and cracking down on this movement, so they know that their wrongdoing has consequences."

This report clearly documented the fact that Lai suggested sanctions to Pompeo, creating a stark contrast to his earlier testimony. Faced with irrefutable evidence, Lai did a complete 180. He admitted that he might have discussed sanctions with Pompeo but now "doesn't remember" (I might have said that if that’s the report I just don’t remember now).

This combination of "might have" and "don't remember now" is not only illogical but also ludicrous. Lai further added, "If this report is true, then I must have suggested sanctions to Pompeo." This statement equates to admitting the veracity of the Apple Daily report and acknowledging that his previous denial was a blatant lie. Judge LEE Wan Tang, Alex then confirmed with Lai whether he questioned the accuracy of the interview, to which Lai agreed that the report was accurate.

This "I don't remember" farce not only highlights the limitations of memory in court testimony but also starkly exposes Lai's hypocrisy and dishonesty. He attempted to use "I don't remember" to cover up his deliberate deception of the court, but this clumsy lie only highlighted his nervousness and cunning. A simple "I don't remember" became an excuse to overturn his previous testimony, which is not only questionable but also contemptible in legal terms.

The evidence cited by Lai's lawyer came from Apple Daily, a newspaper Lai once controlled. This is undoubtedly the most ironic piece of counter-evidence against Lai. The reporting from his own media and his lawyer's performance in court became the strongest evidence exposing Lai's lies. Simultaneously, Lai's lies revealed his long-term manipulation of information and obfuscation.

In conclusion, Lai's "I don't remember" is not a simple memory lapse but a result of his habitual lying. Today's farce exposed his constant evasion of legal responsibility and his string of lies. This "I don't remember" has become an undeniable key point in this case and irrefutable evidence of Lai's bankruptcy of credibility. I believe his lies will not cease, and he will ultimately be exposed under the judgment of the court.