Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome to Judging Sam, the trial of Sam Bankman Freed.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Lewis. We're recording this on Tuesday evening, Halloween,
Speaker 1: October the thirty first, and we're finally in the home stretch.
Speaker 1: The prosecution finished their cross examination of Sam today and
Speaker 1: then the defense followed up with a redirect and then
Speaker 1: everybody rested. Tomorrow we'll start closing arguments. Lydia Jean, you
Speaker 1: waited outside the courthouse for nearly seven hours last night.
Speaker 1: What was that like?
Speaker 2: Honestly, I feel embarrassed that I did that, especially because
Speaker 2: there was no need because people were arriving at six
Speaker 2: am and able to get into the courthouse. Fine, but
Speaker 2: I got scared from yesterday.
Speaker 1: Well, the market turned right. It was so interesting to
Speaker 1: hear people talk there this etiquette that nobody divulged what
Speaker 1: time they got there because the night the night before,
Speaker 1: because it is going to cause people to get there
Speaker 1: even earlier the next day. Yeah. I've been this creep
Speaker 1: to the point where two days ago the first guy
Speaker 1: shows up at like eleven o'clock at night.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I feel like I've done every hour I've done
Speaker 2: at this point, I've done two. I've done three, I've
Speaker 2: done four. I always thought I've never really considered part
Speaker 2: of my day before.
Speaker 1: So you got there, you said one in the morning
Speaker 1: to fifteen. I think two fifteen. You got there to fifteen,
Speaker 1: And how many people were ahead of you? Thirteen? But
Speaker 1: at six in the morning you could still get a.
Speaker 2: Spot in the cause twenty one people can usually get in,
Speaker 2: and I think the twenty first person arrived at like
Speaker 2: six thirty am.
Speaker 1: So I was in the overflow room for the first
Speaker 1: half of the day anyway, with people. I was surrounded
Speaker 1: by people who'd foresworn in the morning line, so that
Speaker 1: wasn't worth it and they didn't care anymore. It round sick. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is no way to lead a life. And there
Speaker 1: was all that kind of stuff going on in the
Speaker 1: in the overflow room, but there were I don't know
Speaker 1: eighty people there, ninety people there, it was. There was
Speaker 1: a crowd still, So give this a brief summary of
Speaker 1: what happened today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the prosecution finished questioning Sam, and I'd say
Speaker 2: it wasn't too different from yesterday where he kept saying
Speaker 2: that he didn't remember things. Then the defense did to redirect,
Speaker 2: and then they rested, and then the prosecution decided not
Speaker 2: to do a rebuttal.
Speaker 1: And then what happened for the back end of the day.
Speaker 2: Then there was it's called a charging conference, which is
Speaker 2: when the lawyers and the judge talked about what instructions
Speaker 2: the jury should get about each of about the charges,
Speaker 2: so basically what they're supposed to consider when they're considering
Speaker 2: Sam's case.
Speaker 1: And did they finish with that?
Speaker 2: They did, yes?
Speaker 1: And what did they did you were you able to
Speaker 1: hear what they were saying?
Speaker 2: Basically, the judge is going to read to the jury
Speaker 2: this sixty page document that explains every single charge and
Speaker 2: how they need to think about that charge. And they
Speaker 2: went through the sixty page document pretty much line by line,
Speaker 2: and it was everything from fixing typo was like talking
Speaker 2: about like whether a sentence should be in the subjunctive
Speaker 2: or not, which they actually did disagree about, to more
Speaker 2: substantial things as well.
Speaker 1: So what did you sense was there were the bones
Speaker 1: of contention between the defense and either the judge or
Speaker 1: the prosecution.
Speaker 2: It was pretty much what you would expect. For instance,
Speaker 2: the prosecution wanted to have a clause that said conscious avoidance,
Speaker 2: so basically the idea of purposefully not knowing something. If
Speaker 2: you're purposefully not knowing, it doesn't make you not guilty
Speaker 2: of the thing like.
Speaker 1: Skipping the meeting where you're talking about the bug and
Speaker 1: how to fix the bug exactly.
Speaker 2: And then the defense said that they don't want conscious
Speaker 2: avoidance to be one of the charges.
Speaker 1: Gotcha, What did you make of Sam on the stand?
Speaker 1: Did he seem that he had shifted his strategy at all? No?
Speaker 2: I think it was still it was just a daze
Speaker 2: of I don't remember, I don't remember, I don't remember.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I ever seen anybody not remember so many memorable things?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, well that's because he had so much more
Speaker 2: to lose by remembering, you know what I mean, Like
Speaker 2: nothing that he would remember could actually help him that much,
Speaker 2: and things that he said could actually hurt him. So
Speaker 2: probably his lawyer said it was a safer strategy to
Speaker 2: just say he doesn't remember, because that way he can't
Speaker 2: get caught for lying on the stand, which could add
Speaker 2: extra time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that part of it was kind of unsatisfying. I
Speaker 1: thought that what did you think of the redirect? The
Speaker 1: redirect to me is very satisfying because he finally will
Speaker 1: talk and sort of explain stuff, and a lot of
Speaker 1: what you know, and a lot of what he's explaining
Speaker 1: makes sense. The frustration with the courtroom is neither side
Speaker 1: is actually operating in the spirit of honesty. They're both
Speaker 1: trying to make a case and so taking stuff out
Speaker 1: of context and blowing stuff up and making it mean
Speaker 1: something different than it actually meant back when it was happening,
Speaker 1: and it was I find it kind of a relief
Speaker 1: to let him go a little bit, let him explain.
Speaker 1: Judging Sam will be right back. Welcome back to Judging Sam.
Speaker 1: The trial of Sam Bangman freed.
Speaker 2: You told me at lunch that you learned I think
Speaker 2: you said you learned two things today.
Speaker 1: Right, We're now at the end of the testimony, and
Speaker 1: I have a long list of things that I'm surprised
Speaker 1: I didn't learn more about. You know, I thought the
Speaker 1: trial was going to clear some stuff up for me
Speaker 1: that it did that. It just didn't today. You know,
Speaker 1: one thing that was interesting to me. They gave us
Speaker 1: a glimpse of a memo that Caroline had written to Sam.
Speaker 1: And most of the random stuff was very very positive
Speaker 1: stuff like oh, we made ten billion dollars this quarter
Speaker 1: or on FTT or whatever it was. But they had.
Speaker 1: It was. It was the moment they took the loss
Speaker 1: for what was essentially a theft of the exchange. It
Speaker 1: was a gaming of the risk engine using a couple
Speaker 1: of obscure crypto tokens. I thought the loss from that
Speaker 1: episode was six million, and she listed it at eight
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million, and that was you know, I've
Speaker 1: been humbering for. There's still money that's not accounted for.
Speaker 1: If you listen to the prosecution case from the point
Speaker 1: of view of a jury who's sort of like only
Speaker 1: half paying attention, you might come away with the belief that, oh,
Speaker 1: Sam Bankman Freed stole eleven billion dollars in customer money
Speaker 1: and spent it all. Kept using that term who you
Speaker 1: spent it? You spent it, You spent Yes, you spent
Speaker 1: very little of it. Most of it is either there
Speaker 1: or invested in things that actually have some value, some
Speaker 1: of some things that have some great value.
Speaker 2: Because you know, in the judge's eyes, right, it's like
Speaker 2: if you stole money and then you win the lottery,
Speaker 2: you're luckily found it. It doesn't really impact that you
Speaker 2: stole the money.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's not what happened here. The bankruptcy. People
Speaker 1: have collected seven point three billion dollars of liquid assets
Speaker 1: that seem to have been stuffed in various exchanges and
Speaker 1: bank accounts. And there was a bunch of liquid assets
Speaker 1: still on hand when they collapsed, and he made a
Speaker 1: big bunch of venture capital investments. And so I was
Speaker 1: surprised I didn't find its way in. They still the
Speaker 1: opportunity to call witnesses, for example, in the rebuttal, I
Speaker 1: didn't know who to recall.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they said they were going to call some yesterday.
Speaker 1: There were four or five characters. Five characters from the
Speaker 1: book got principal characters in the book. And in particular,
Speaker 1: I thought, you know, Ramnick Aurora was basically on a
Speaker 1: plane to come here. He thought he was on he
Speaker 1: thought he was on the witness stand. He thought he
Speaker 1: had a date, I think at one point, and.
Speaker 2: Romni Ga is one of He was a pretty high
Speaker 2: up FTX person, race.
Speaker 1: Very high up. I kind of half thought that a
Speaker 1: couple of things from other things from the book were
Speaker 1: going to make their way in via the prosecution. And
Speaker 1: we found out that the book was apparently disallowed or something.
Speaker 1: I got a note today that the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: I guess it's in the transcripts reported that the defense
Speaker 1: tried to introduce a passage from the book, and we're
Speaker 1: told they couldn't do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, was doing a side panel, so we couldn't hear
Speaker 2: it in quirt.
Speaker 1: If you'd ask me what was going to be introduced
Speaker 1: from the book? And I thought, how could it not be?
Speaker 1: Sam telling me when I asked him what he would
Speaker 1: have said if someone had directly, precisely asked him the question,
Speaker 1: is Alameda subjected to the same risk engine as every
Speaker 1: other trader on on FTX? And he says, I would
Speaker 1: have made a word, Salid, or I would have or
Speaker 1: I have found some way to answer a different question.
Speaker 1: I just thought, wow, so damning that that would Yeah,
Speaker 1: how did that and not find its way in? But
Speaker 1: it didn't. It just shows you that, like telling a
Speaker 1: story in a courtroom is different from telling the story
Speaker 1: as you would as a as a writer.
Speaker 2: What was it like to hear because moments that you
Speaker 2: spent with Sam came up in court right Like they
Speaker 2: asked him about when he took a private debt to
Speaker 2: a Super Bowl game.
Speaker 1: I remember that it was a private plane because I
Speaker 1: was on the plane.
Speaker 2: You don't not recall.
Speaker 1: I don't not recall, and in fact I can. I
Speaker 1: can give you blow by a blow of being on
Speaker 1: the plane. Kind of. I mostly remember who was on
Speaker 1: the plane. I remember conversations from the super Bowl. I mean,
Speaker 1: I could kind of understand when he says, I don't
Speaker 1: remember exactly what I said to this journalist or that journalist.
Speaker 1: That I understand. You know, it's like one interview after
Speaker 1: another you just forget. But stuff you do like that
Speaker 1: seems stranger. Like he was asked if he had dinner
Speaker 1: with Bill Clinton in the Prime Minister of the Bahamas,
Speaker 1: and he kind of basically tried to say no, and
Speaker 1: then he said he wasn't sure of Yeah, he said.
Speaker 2: He didn't know if it was a dinner, but it
Speaker 2: was an evening gathering.
Speaker 1: It was during his crypto Bahamas thing last April. And
Speaker 1: it was a moment because they showed a video of
Speaker 1: them all together, and that was kind of a cool
Speaker 1: moment because Clinton appointed Lewis Kaplan to the bench. I mean,
Speaker 1: so scout Kaplan was seeing his benefactor up there on
Speaker 1: the screen. But I did, you know, I did have
Speaker 1: a thought about the prosecution's strategy of trying to make
Speaker 1: the case that Sam was trying to basically bribe the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of the Bahamas.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wanted to bring that up with you because
Speaker 2: they also mentioned that he said he was going to
Speaker 2: pay off the national debt of the Bahamas, which is
Speaker 2: also in your book, and.
Speaker 1: I've never seen it anywhere else. That was so not
Speaker 1: in the beginning, an attempt to bribe the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: of the Bahamas. It was an idea that it was
Speaker 1: one of the many bonkers ideas Sam had, including like
Speaker 1: paying Trump five billion dollars not to run for president,
Speaker 1: that he had immediately upon arrival in the Bahamas when
Speaker 1: they first moved the company there days after, because he
Speaker 1: was he was having trouble getting his whole company to
Speaker 1: move from Hong Kong, and especially a lot of the
Speaker 1: Chinese people staff said there's no place to put their
Speaker 1: kids in school. The roads had botholes. You're complaining about the.
Speaker 2: Country, and he was, so he was like, I'll fix
Speaker 2: the country.
Speaker 1: I'll fix the country. Yes, that's exactly what it was.
Speaker 1: He thought. He didn't know what he was thinking. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'll have to do this in order to attract the
Speaker 1: ten to come work in the Bahamas. So that was
Speaker 1: the original notion. But anyway, the thought I had about
Speaker 1: that was, no matter what happens in this trial, and
Speaker 1: it seems unlikely that anything's going to happen but a conviction,
Speaker 1: they're supposed to be a second trial in March or
Speaker 1: April with these other charges that the Bahamas government had
Speaker 1: not agreed to, and that they have to agree to
Speaker 1: allow them to proceed with the charges in order to
Speaker 1: bring them to even have that trial. And it seemed
Speaker 1: a strange strategy, indeed, to antagonize the Prime Minister of
Speaker 1: the Bahamas before you're asking the Bahamas permission to do
Speaker 1: this all over again. That surprised me a bit, but
Speaker 1: it also made me wonder if the prosecutions basically decided
Speaker 1: that they're going to win so big and Sam's going
Speaker 1: to go away for so many years that there's never
Speaker 1: going to be a second trial.
Speaker 2: That's what I've That's kind of what I've assumed.
Speaker 1: The second trial would be very interesting because a lot
Speaker 1: of American politicians who will be implicated, and that that
Speaker 1: could be a show. One of Sam's advisors suggested to
Speaker 1: me a weird possibility that if Sam is convicted and
Speaker 1: remanded to the Metropolitan Detention Center, awaiting sentencing from the judge.
Speaker 1: That the judge could actually wait to sentence him for
Speaker 1: you know, many many months and allow the second trial
Speaker 1: to happen before he even sentenced him for the first.
Speaker 2: Just actually, yeah, because sentencing can normally take a while.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so that is it's conceived. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: up to captain. But it's conceivable that Katherlin could will
Speaker 1: into being the second trial, which apparently would be in
Speaker 1: his courtroom too.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, really, we could all renate.
Speaker 1: There are things that made an impression on me. The
Speaker 1: cross examination over the two days. It surprised me that Sam,
Speaker 1: if Sam was going to testify, and he did as
Speaker 1: he did, if you're going to scheme up a hail Mary,
Speaker 1: you've got to throw the pass. And I felt he
Speaker 1: didn't throw the pass. I felt like that they're not answering,
Speaker 1: kind of choking it off and not responding to the
Speaker 1: prosecution made him look evasive to the jury, that his
Speaker 1: one one hope was to be radically open. I thought,
Speaker 1: but that might be just stupid. But I thought, if
Speaker 1: you're going to if.
Speaker 2: You're gonna go through, you're already in that world though
Speaker 2: right of like, that's right.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's that's right. The other thing is it's
Speaker 1: started lurking in the background because it was it's like
Speaker 1: a buzz in my head when I'm listening to the
Speaker 1: prosecutors because their line, their insistent line, is you stole
Speaker 1: the money, you stole the money. The sin, through my eyes,
Speaker 1: is that he risks the money without permission. He borrowed
Speaker 1: it and put it at risk without asking anybody's permission,
Speaker 1: and he put people at risk without their consent, which
Speaker 1: is something he does pretty naturally. He does it in
Speaker 1: his romantic life, he does it in his relationship with
Speaker 1: his employees. Some of the characters were particularly upset that
Speaker 1: he put them in a position of lying for him.
Speaker 1: I always felt like the way they were coming at
Speaker 1: him wasn't capturing the spirit of the Yeah, I hear you.
Speaker 2: I think so. Soon had one time where she said,
Speaker 2: you know, would you say that you're someone who would
Speaker 2: take a huge risk and risk a big loss or something? Right,
Speaker 2: the one time she kind of got at it, and
Speaker 2: when she said that that's something maybe like I actually
Speaker 2: think maybe she does understand same makeman freed. Yeah, but
Speaker 2: maybe the story of him as a gambler, isn't It's
Speaker 2: a slightly more complicated story than just him as a thief, right, right,
Speaker 2: You have a little bit more sympathy for a gambler
Speaker 2: than a crook, right, And he was both, so she
Speaker 2: could choose a story that worked best.
Speaker 1: And while it's very hard for a person to contrive
Speaker 1: a self defense after a simple theft, if I steal
Speaker 1: your person run off with it, it's totally understandable what
Speaker 1: I did. But if I put you at risk because
Speaker 1: I've misjudged the risk.
Speaker 2: And isn't that the gambler mindset, like being forever optimistic
Speaker 2: and always believing in yourself and that it will work out,
Speaker 2: which is why you can always continue to take risks well.
Speaker 1: And the added twist being that it's conceivable that it
Speaker 1: could work out, It could work after so that's even weirder, right,
Speaker 1: So it's conceivable. The money is there and more because
Speaker 1: this stake in anthropic.
Speaker 2: But at the end of the day, like even if
Speaker 2: you're a good gambler, doesn't it you know, doesn't it
Speaker 2: always come does anyone just always win in the end?
Speaker 2: Like it was always going to come crushing down?
Speaker 1: Yeah, eventually, And the way this place was run, it
Speaker 1: was chaos. Something was going to happen. Judging Sam will
Speaker 1: be right back. So I have a question for you,
Speaker 1: because maybe this isn't an odd thing about this trial,
Speaker 1: but it seems like an odd thing to me about
Speaker 1: this trial that a lot of the facts were agreed upon,
Speaker 1: like the fact fact that the money was in the
Speaker 1: wrong place from the start, and that the reason the
Speaker 1: money was in the wrong place was this risk engine
Speaker 1: exemption and this this FIAT at account where they were
Speaker 1: taking deposits directly in Alameda rather than taking them into FTX.
Speaker 1: When they find out that the money's not just in
Speaker 1: the wrong place, but that it's at risk, So when
Speaker 1: they know, and then what they do about what they know?
Speaker 1: That was sort of what was at issue during this
Speaker 1: whole trial, and the prosecutors never really go back before
Speaker 1: May of last year in their in their argument.
Speaker 2: About this right briefly but mostly are.
Speaker 1: So my question is, having listened to this whole trial,
Speaker 1: when do you think Sam Bankman Freed knew that this
Speaker 1: huge sum of money was in the wrong place And
Speaker 1: when did you think he was really worried it was
Speaker 1: that right?
Speaker 2: I don't think that mattered to him I.
Speaker 1: Think that's true. It didn't even occur to him. It's
Speaker 1: just a big post. Yeah, okay, so that's that's which
Speaker 1: is so I agree with that. Then. So second and
Speaker 1: the second part of this is when do you think
Speaker 1: he was actually alarmed and being devious about it?
Speaker 2: Okay? I think it's weird because in all of the
Speaker 2: conversations that even Adam Yddia, Caroline Gary, and Nishad recount,
Speaker 2: he's always acting a bit weird in those conversations, Like
Speaker 2: even in their stories, he's not acting like a man
Speaker 2: who's like, we're in a terrible situation. You know, even
Speaker 2: in their stories he's kind of saying, but our nett
Speaker 2: acid value is okay. Like he sounds always a little
Speaker 2: bit worried, but no one ever describes him as panicked,
Speaker 2: even you know, after everything has crashed, when he's talking
Speaker 2: to can Sun about asking him for legal you know,
Speaker 2: legal reason for why the money could be in the
Speaker 2: wrong place, he doesn't even sound that worried. Right, His
Speaker 2: reactions don't really ever seem to match what they you
Speaker 2: think they should be, I guess, and all these stories
Speaker 2: his reactions read odd to me.
Speaker 1: Do you find him an interesting character? Still?
Speaker 2: He just reminds me of like those guys at the
Speaker 2: lunch table who are really good at math and science
Speaker 2: talk forever and you're just like, none of this is
Speaker 2: actually relevant to my life. And then but I wouldn't
Speaker 2: say that. I feel like I completely understand him. And
Speaker 2: maybe that is partly why I woke up at two
Speaker 2: ten this morning and slept on, you know, a poncho
Speaker 2: and my laptop is because I did want to see
Speaker 2: him talk, because I was hoping that if I could
Speaker 2: see him. I think I do understand him.
Speaker 1: So, but you do feel imm elusive. You don't feel
Speaker 1: like you completely understand it.
Speaker 2: I think you're right. I think if I felt like
Speaker 2: I could confidently say I understand him, I wouldn't have
Speaker 2: been so keen on feeling like I had to see him.
Speaker 1: The second question is does it surprise you now you've
Speaker 1: heard this, all the evidence, you've heard all the testimony,
Speaker 1: that no one identified the problem like that.
Speaker 2: You know, people were worried about FTX and elom relationship,
Speaker 2: but that no one was No one suggested that actually
Speaker 2: Alameda was just taking and using ftx's money.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think there's a reason no one called uh
Speaker 1: huh it didn't make It didn't make any sense. Like,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't make a lot of sense for Alameda to,
Speaker 1: I don't know, get preferential access to customers trading data
Speaker 1: and do on FTX what high frequency traders do on
Speaker 1: the New York stocky stage and it's legal there. That
Speaker 1: would make a lot of sense. It was so dumb
Speaker 1: for the all for these principles. His wealth was all
Speaker 1: tied up in just the success of FTX. To allow
Speaker 1: Alameda to do that, you don't guess it. It's not
Speaker 1: an obvious crime to commit. The obvious thing to do
Speaker 1: end of twenty nineteen, beginning twenty twenty, when FTX is
Speaker 1: just exploding, like in a good way, is do everything
Speaker 1: keep FTX safe. That's the obvious thing to do, and
Speaker 1: like either get rid of Alameda or do this. Alameda
Speaker 1: is is in the beginning very helpful. But when the
Speaker 1: minute Alomed is not really necessary to make markets on FTX,
Speaker 1: the minute it becomes unimportant there, you do everything to
Speaker 1: distance it. You can get rid of it. You do
Speaker 1: everything to preserve FTX because it's a source of such
Speaker 1: vast wealth. You don't jeopardize it by making weird venture
Speaker 1: capital investments with customers money in Alameda, it's just dumb.
Speaker 2: Why that's I mean, I have been wondering why.
Speaker 1: Actually, yeah, the trial, the trial has not asked answered
Speaker 1: the question. Right the trial. I guess if you're a
Speaker 1: juror and you're sitting there and you'd have to really
Speaker 1: not be paying too close attention, you could, but you
Speaker 1: might come away if you got to ask it at a
Speaker 1: dinner party. Why did this guy do that? You might say, Oh,
Speaker 1: he wanted to fly on private planes and hang out
Speaker 1: with Tom Brady, or.
Speaker 2: Name the stadium after his company. You have those sorts
Speaker 2: of reasons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but he could have done anyway. He didn't need
Speaker 1: he didn't need to do what he did in Alameda
Speaker 1: to do all that other stuff. My answer is he
Speaker 1: was going infinite. His ambition was so grandiose. Forty billion
Speaker 1: wasn't enough. He needed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
Speaker 1: billions to do the thing he thought he wanted to do.
Speaker 1: And so he's he's playing it's all board game. Everything
Speaker 1: in Sam Bangerfree's life is a game, but he's playing
Speaker 1: the game with those kind of sums in mind. So
Speaker 1: Alamed is that all of a sudden becomes relevant that
Speaker 1: most people would have been incredibly satisfied. It would have
Speaker 1: been like risk averse once they had a company that
Speaker 1: was value of forty billion dollars, right, and that for
Speaker 1: him it's just the anti It's just like the beginning
Speaker 1: of the game. Anyway. So what's where we have to
Speaker 1: look forward to. I'm going back home in the morning.
Speaker 1: You're going to go into the courthouse. What happens tomorrow?
Speaker 2: The prosecution will say they're clar argument, Then the defense
Speaker 2: says they're closing argument. That's two to three hours each
Speaker 2: and then the prosecution does like a forty five minute rebuttal.
Speaker 2: They said it would take about forty five minutes to
Speaker 2: the defense's closing arguments.
Speaker 1: So the prosecution gets to go last.
Speaker 2: The prosecution gets to go last, and so soon who
Speaker 2: I think will be doing the last rebuttal. She actually
Speaker 2: asked if she could get a podium without a monitor
Speaker 2: and move it to face the jury, and Judge Couplan said, no,
Speaker 2: there's a reason the podiums don't move.
Speaker 1: You remember the Saturday Night Live skitt was shown Spicer
Speaker 1: as the moving his podium around and ramming it into
Speaker 1: the jury. I know, I know what that just that
Speaker 1: just that just popped to mind, Daniel Daniel Sessen ramming
Speaker 1: the podium into the jury until that.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's true. I mean we were talking
Speaker 2: about how so soon you know, to your if so
Speaker 2: Soon told me I was guilty, I would, I would
Speaker 2: believe it. I would apologize for everything I'd ever done
Speaker 2: in my life.
Speaker 1: All Right, So you have fun tomorrow. I'll be on
Speaker 1: a plane tomorrow and I will talk again on Thursday.
Speaker 2: Yes, I speak for myself and all the journalists to
Speaker 2: say that we're gonna miss you, Well, I'll.
Speaker 1: Miss you too. It's been fun. See ya hy. We'll
Speaker 1: be back in your feed soon with more expert analysis
Speaker 1: and news from Sam bankman Fried's trial. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: This episode of Judging Sam was hosted by Me, Michael Lewis.
Speaker 1: Lydia Gencott is our court reporter. Katherine Girardeau and Nisha
Speaker 1: Venken produced this show. Sophie Crane is our editor. Our
Speaker 1: music was composed by Matthias Bossi and John Evans of
Speaker 1: stell Wagon Symphonette. Judging Sam is a production of Pushkin Industries.
Speaker 1: Got a question or comment for me, There's a website
Speaker 1: for that atr podcast dot com. That's atr podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: To find more Pushkin podcasts, listen on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If
Speaker 1: you'd like to access bonus episodes and listen ad free,
Speaker 1: don't forget to sign up for a Pushkin Plus subscription
Speaker 1: at pushkin dot fm, slash plus, or on our Apple
Speaker 1: show page