After Huawei Courtroom Sealed All Day Heberlig Crossed Sweeney by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack EDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 8 – With the USA v. Huawei trial now sealed in Federal court in Brooklyn, when those allowed in poured out for lunch on October 2, there was loud talk about the travel plans of the witness for whom, presumably, the courtroom closure took place, see below and here. Presiding Judge Ann Donnelly had said everyone who was not a lawyer for Huawei or the Government had to leave. She had not, at least in the docket, ruled on Inner City Press' docketed filing opposing the closure. (Earlier on September 8 sehe had instructed prospective jurors: "China and the Communist Party … are not on trial."   The same was said, or claimed, in the Southern District of New York in the UN corruption trials of CCP-member Ng Lap Seng, and CCP-NGO boss Patrick Ho of the China Energy Fund Committee. Both were convicted. But is Huawei different? On September 9 Inner City Press put out a 20 tweet thread of the opening arguments, on X and Bluesky. September 9 extra on X for subscribers here and Substack here   On September 16-17 Inner City Press published a book, Huawei on Trial in Brooklyn, Surveillance from Iran to the UN, here. It contains information on how Huawei enables surveillance by many UN states / the UN. In the White House on September 18 there was talk now minimizing spying. On the afternoon of September 18, this: "on the government's motion to close the courtroom for three witnesses's testimony. The government's motion and all supporting and opposing briefing have been filed under seal. (See ECF Nos. 789, 812, 815, 862, 863.) The Court grants the government's motion. The closure of the courtroom will be tailored by providing access to redacted transcripts as soon as possible after the witnesses's testimony. Opinion setting forth the Courts reasoning in detail to follow. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 9/18/202."   Inner City Press that night emailed opposition to the closure, along with a request that DOJ's motions for the closure be unsealed, docketed here. No ruling, and all morning - seemingly, all day - courtroom sealing on October 2. At the lunch break, a woman Inner City Press had seen in the Courthouse Cafe during some of the sealing approached one of the prosecutors loudly about the witness' travel plans. More on X for Subscriber here and Substack here On October 6-7, the US Attorney's Office put in a letter that the jury should not hear that Meng has a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, only what she allocuted to - letter on Patreon here.   Here was Huawei lawyer Heberlig's cross of Sweeney: Heberlig: The Huawei guy who sent the comments, he worked in the Shenzen, not Iran, right Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: So the emails have large redactions? Sweeney: Yes. I don't know who did the redactions. Heberlig: Do you see these big black out sections in the email? Sweeney: Yes Heberlig: All the questions are redacted, correct? AUSA: Objection! Relevance. Judge: Is something redacted? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: Do you see in the whole exchange any of the questions? AUSA: Objection, relevance. Judge: Overruled Sweeney: No. Heberlig: And there are even redacted portions in Huawei's message? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: So you don't know what questions were asked, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: And do you agree that to understand the answer you need the full question? Sweeney: Yes. Heberig: And we also don't have the full answers? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: On the memory card recovered from Ms. Meng, there's no metadata, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: So the statement of facts says Ms. Meng's statement that Huawei's partnership with Skycom was a normal partnership was untrue? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: It doesn't say she lied, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: And would you agree there is a difference between intentional lie and a mistake? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: And on Ms. Meng's statement that Huawei had sold its shares of Skycom is says "these statements were untrue, because, as Ms. Meng knew," and it goes into what she knew? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: And that's framed in the passive voice, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: So it essentially states that the statement was untrue because she knew these facts? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: It doesn't say she knew the statement were untrue at that time, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: It say, quote, it would have been material to HSBC to know that Huawei controlled Skycom? Sweeney: Yes. But it doesn't say Ms. Meng knew it would have been material, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: And later on dollar clearing, there's no statement that Ms. Meng knew of it, correct? Sweeney: Only Huawei. Heberlig: But specifically, there's no information that Ms. Meng knew of it, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: GX 21322-1-R, is this an HSBC report prepared by Peter Zheng? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: And it doesn't mention Huawei controlling Skycom or Canicula, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: Nothing further. Judge Donnelly: Any re-direct? AUSA: Briefly, your Honor. AUSA: So on cross you were asked about email redactions? Sweeney: Yes. AUSA: And you couldn't tell what was under the redactions? Sweeney: Correct. AUSA: That email chain involved Huawei? Sweeney: Yes. AUSA: Huawei has records of these emails? Heberlig: Objection! Judge: Overruled. Sweeney: Yes. AUSA: So Huawei knows what they were asked and what they answered, completely? Heberlig: Objection! Judge: Overruled. Sweeney: Yes AUSA: In the stipulation does it say Ms. Meng acknowledged the statement of facts to be all true? Sweeney: Yes. AUSA: So defense counsel asked you about the phrase "these statements were untrue, because, as Ms. Meng knew" - Ms. Sweeney, have you heard of the phrase parsing words? Sweeney: Yes. AUSA: What does that expression mean? Sweeney: Um, when you're mixing words. AUSA: And would you say there is an alternative and perhaps more plausible reading of the statement of facts, that Ms. Meng did at the time know that her statements were false? Sweeney: Yes. AUSA: It says her description of Skycom as a "partner" was untrue and she knew it was untrue? Sweeney: Yes. AUSA: So was she just unlucky to have lies in her statement? Sweeney: No. AUSA: Nothing further. Judge: Mr. Heberlig, any re-cross? Heberlig: Just one, your Honor... So in the stipulation it says Ms. Meng agreed with the statement of facts according to her best information and belief? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: Do you agree people can learn info in the interval? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: And they can learn it second hand? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: So she could have never learned that information during the relevant period, correct? Sweeney: Correct. Heberlig: Thank you, your Honor. AUSA: One more question, Your Honor. Judge Donnelly: Alright. AUSA: Would you call the question about how she could have never learned these facts at the time a way of parsing words? Sweeney: Yes. [AUSA walks back to table] Heberlig: Just one last question- [Jurors laugh] Heberlig: Would you agree that the precise meaning of words can be critically important? Sweeney: Yes. Heberlig: Now, have a good evening. Back on September 30 HSBC Alan O. Thomas was on the stand all day - Inner City Press live tweeted, here. We continue to await exhibit(s) - even as Inner City Press has appealed EDNY sealing to the 2d Circuit... OK- in US v Huawei on Friday Judge Donnelly docketed that the courtroom would be (entirely) closed for some witnesses. Just now, docketed: Inner City Press opposition, and application to unseal DOJ's motions for closure. This 3 days before Trump-Xi meeting... https://t.co/kM6wCsNDt5 pic.twitter.com/Qzu5k9Ktus — Inner City Press (@innercitypress) September 21, 2026 More/update on X for Subscribers here and Substack here *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com