Speaker 1: Pushkin.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Judging Sam, our podcast about the trial of
Speaker 2: Sam Bangman freed. I'm Michael Lewis and I'm here outside
Speaker 2: the courthouse with Lydia Jane Kott doing actual reporting. I'm
Speaker 2: off my book tour and we're going to be together
Speaker 2: in the courthouse for the next four days. Lydia Jane
Speaker 2: was in that she got here, was at three in
Speaker 2: the morning or four in the four thirty in the morning,
Speaker 2: was in the overflow room and I got here late
Speaker 2: and thanks to Lydia Jean's while snuck into the main
Speaker 2: courtroom to watch Sam Bagman free testify. I want to
Speaker 2: So we're gonna start with you because you actually took notes.
Speaker 2: I just sat and watched. What was your What were
Speaker 2: your takeaways today?
Speaker 3: So first off, we should say that it was kind
Speaker 3: of a rehearsal for Sam mcmnfried's testament.
Speaker 1: Surely we should explain this. Do you understand it? Because
Speaker 1: I can try, but you made me understand it better.
Speaker 3: Basically, what happened is that the prosecution rested and then
Speaker 3: the defense began their case. So we had two really
Speaker 3: quick witnesses. Who was it someone lawyer from the Bahamas.
Speaker 2: It was Sam's lawyer from the Bahamas who had met
Speaker 2: Don on the Bahamas, and it was a financial expert
Speaker 2: who was trying to say something that didn't make a
Speaker 2: whole lot of sense about the FTX accounts.
Speaker 3: And then there's this. The prosecution and the defense have
Speaker 3: been arguing about whether they can use not a formal
Speaker 3: advice of counsel defense. But the defense wants to say
Speaker 3: that Sam Makmun Freed talked to lawyers and that gave
Speaker 3: him some comfort in the decisions that he made going forward,
Speaker 3: and the prosecution does not want that to be brought
Speaker 3: in front of the jury. And the judge wasn't able
Speaker 3: to make a decision, so he asked basically to hear
Speaker 3: the testimony and then after he hears it, he's going
Speaker 3: to decide whether or not the jury can hear it
Speaker 3: as well. And this is really rare.
Speaker 1: He never it is never right noticed.
Speaker 2: I was sitting next to a lawyer and lawyer said
Speaker 2: he'd never really seen this happen before.
Speaker 3: I was an next a lawyer who told me the
Speaker 3: same thing.
Speaker 2: And so there was and it went on for I
Speaker 2: don't know, three hours, maybe more. And what was so
Speaker 2: interesting about it to me? There were six things that
Speaker 2: were interesting about it to me. But the first was
Speaker 2: the actual testimony that Sam's lawyers weren't introduce. I couldn't
Speaker 2: see what it was so controversial about it. It was
Speaker 2: pretty straightforward, kind of dull, useful to a point. You
Speaker 2: could see that the lawyers were signing off on certain
Speaker 2: documents that seemed to authorize Sam to do things like
Speaker 2: use FTX custom money to buy stuff. But what was
Speaker 2: so interesting is the cross examination and Danielle Sassoon, who
Speaker 2: was the government lawyer. The prosecutor, used this occasion to
Speaker 2: not just question the specific testimony that Sam wanted to deliver,
Speaker 2: but essentially try the whole case, which she was willing
Speaker 2: to do. They were going to be there till nine
Speaker 2: at night. The judge was getting I've been walking around?
Speaker 3: Oh he was, so he looked was he doing that
Speaker 3: thing that he leans over?
Speaker 1: He was clearly irritated a little bit with her.
Speaker 2: But her question was so interesting that you could see
Speaker 2: him getting irritated with Sam at how long, at how
Speaker 2: he was answering the questions. This most single most important line, Well,
Speaker 2: first was he said to Sam, henceforth, listen to the
Speaker 2: question and answer the question. Directly, which I wish I
Speaker 2: could have said to Sam for the last two years
Speaker 2: because I you know, this is a running theme in
Speaker 2: the book that Sam, you ask him a question, you
Speaker 2: get a different answer.
Speaker 3: You didn't judge didn't listen to you.
Speaker 2: But the other thing was the judge just kind of
Speaker 2: all by himself, says. The witness has an interesting way
Speaker 2: of answering questions.
Speaker 3: I shouldn't know it on that as well.
Speaker 1: And this is if you really have to listen for
Speaker 1: it, it's a gift. It's almost like an art form. With Sam.
Speaker 2: Most people, when they don't answer your question, you instantly
Speaker 2: realize they didn't answer your question. Sam is so good
Speaker 2: at not answering your question. If you're not really on
Speaker 2: top of it, you're lulled into thinking your question was
Speaker 2: answered and facing a less capable lawyer, he'd be very seductive.
Speaker 2: Sam's just natural way of answering questions could be an
Speaker 2: eventtastically effective strategy. The problem is the lawyer's right on
Speaker 2: top of it, and what's going to happen tomorrow if
Speaker 2: he doesn't watch it is that the jury is going
Speaker 2: to be irritated with him, and because he's going to
Speaker 2: be pointed out again and again and again, and they're
Speaker 2: going to start to see, oh my god, he's not
Speaker 2: answering the question. The jury would never be able to
Speaker 2: figure out the sam wasn't in answering the question less
Speaker 2: people pointed it out to them, and it's going to
Speaker 2: be pointed out over and over.
Speaker 3: I bet, yeah, yeah. I took a note on that, actually,
Speaker 3: because at one point the prosecutor was trying to she
Speaker 3: was having him look at the forms that people signed
Speaker 3: to have their money go into be sent to North
Speaker 3: to mention, which eventually ended up in Alameda, and she
Speaker 3: was asking whether that meant that Alameda could use those funds,
Speaker 3: and she said where exactly? And he said I think
Speaker 3: so essentially right, And she said where exactly on the
Speaker 3: form does it say that?
Speaker 1: And there's this long, incredible silence.
Speaker 3: I timed it was over a minute.
Speaker 1: It felt like five minutes.
Speaker 3: And she said something like, if you need me too,
Speaker 3: I can turn the page.
Speaker 1: Yes, and then and then he had an.
Speaker 3: Answer which started, I should prep that I'm not a lawyer,
Speaker 3: But the part that jives with that, I don't think
Speaker 3: this goes with how you most recently phrase this. And
Speaker 3: by that point I've already lost the thread.
Speaker 2: That's right, and you could see. I mean, it's almost superpower.
Speaker 2: And I gotta say that he's not conventionally dishonest.
Speaker 1: What he does is evade.
Speaker 2: Questions if he doesn't want to answer them. But I
Speaker 2: tell you this, what makes the evasion so powerful. He
Speaker 2: answers the question he wants to answer, even if you
Speaker 2: ask him a question that doesn't particularly bother him.
Speaker 1: He does this with every question.
Speaker 2: He does it very very, very ably, just generally, and
Speaker 2: it's a little spell minded.
Speaker 1: And I thought, first I put myself in his shoes.
Speaker 2: He's been sitting in that jail for what two months
Speaker 2: or so, he's or almost two months.
Speaker 1: He's lost a bunch of weight. He looks different.
Speaker 3: His suit fit so badly.
Speaker 1: He's like a box.
Speaker 2: It's like he stole it off a middle linebacker from
Speaker 2: the New York Giants and tries it is trying to
Speaker 2: wear it, but yeah.
Speaker 1: It doesn't fit. He was unbelievably composed, very smart, very.
Speaker 2: Persuasive in places I thought, I mean, I think, if
Speaker 2: I was just coming to this fresh and even though
Speaker 2: I'm coming to it with everything, I know, you find
Speaker 2: him very persuasive.
Speaker 3: I'm direct. I thought we all thought he did great.
Speaker 3: After it's all the journalists were like, that couldn't have
Speaker 3: gone better?
Speaker 2: Right, That's what I thought the Cross It's not that
Speaker 2: it went horribly, it's that you could see how tomorrow
Speaker 2: could go horribly.
Speaker 1: Is what I thought.
Speaker 2: Is that he was he was getting under the judge's skin,
Speaker 2: and he was getting under the prosecutor's skin, but in
Speaker 2: a way that was going to get under the jury's
Speaker 2: skin that they were not gonna like this, Like when
Speaker 2: they asked him a simple question, he should give a
Speaker 2: simple answer. And this is never a simple answer with Sam.
Speaker 2: It's always complicated. It's like you are instantly in Sam
Speaker 2: Bank mcfred world when you ask him a question and
Speaker 2: you're playing either playing a very complicated board game or
Speaker 2: trying to solve some puzzle that he's created for you.
Speaker 1: And it's beguiling. It's just absolutely beguiling.
Speaker 3: Just the.
Speaker 1: Poise so kind of amazed me.
Speaker 2: If I were in his situation, I would be a
Speaker 2: bundle of nerves. My mind would be someplace else when
Speaker 2: they're asking me to questions. I would not be able
Speaker 2: to track the way he's tracking stuff. And he was
Speaker 2: clearly on top of it all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's he.
Speaker 3: Had some tells though. Did you see that when the
Speaker 3: prosecutor gave him a piece of paper and his hand
Speaker 3: was shaking so much? It was like, maybe because in
Speaker 3: the overflow rooms you can see because the camera's right
Speaker 3: up on his face, the paper was like shaking really hard.
Speaker 2: So the view I had of him, I had the
Speaker 2: best view about the best view in the courtroom of him,
Speaker 2: which was a poor view of the jury, but it's
Speaker 2: a good view of him and the judge. And all
Speaker 2: you really saw was his shoulders as his head. I
Speaker 2: couldn't see his hands, and I couldn't and I wonder
Speaker 2: where his leg.
Speaker 3: Was bouncing up and now I couldn't see it.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you can actually see his leg bouncing,
Speaker 2: but that will be happening because that's.
Speaker 1: Just how he is.
Speaker 2: The Other thing that struck me is like, it's so
Speaker 2: seldom that I've seen him do one thing at a
Speaker 2: time that where they actually sit and have a conversation
Speaker 2: with someone where he isn't playing a video game or true.
Speaker 2: It's always this other reality that occupies him, and I
Speaker 2: think it him.
Speaker 1: It's not his natural way of interacting with people.
Speaker 2: He's shuffling card decks or he's doing and so he's
Speaker 2: really being.
Speaker 1: Stressed by this, like his natural mo o is not allowed.
Speaker 2: I'm just I'm kind of impressed by his fiber, you know,
Speaker 2: I just like I'm impressed by by how he was.
Speaker 1: Hard to do and riveting as theater. Just like riveting
Speaker 1: as theater. Yeah, I don't. I mean, did you? Were
Speaker 1: you getting the same vibe that, like, he's not answering
Speaker 1: the question, were you?
Speaker 3: Well, we were all. We were all every time he
Speaker 3: started doing answering a question, we were all like, oh no, so.
Speaker 1: What the substance of the thing.
Speaker 2: They were supposed to be just talking of those two
Speaker 2: and a half hour three hours about whether they could
Speaker 2: introduce the role that lawyers played in his life, and
Speaker 2: instead she did Daniel Sasson took it to a place
Speaker 2: where did you think it was okay? Did you think
Speaker 2: you had the right to uh to steal customers money?
Speaker 3: Did you do you remember the part there was a
Speaker 3: section about safeguarding and she said, what does safeguarding mean
Speaker 3: to you?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 3: Sam, that is it just keeping Because originally he talked
Speaker 3: about how one way that they safeguarded customer assets was
Speaker 3: to try and protect from hacks, right, And then she
Speaker 3: said to safeguarding, I mean only protecting from hacks and
Speaker 3: he responded, no, I had more to say, and she
Speaker 3: said to you, does it also mean not embuzzling funds?
Speaker 2: And he said, you know, And at that moment that
Speaker 2: his lawyer objected, the judge said sustained, like you're not
Speaker 2: going to have to answer that question. And he answered
Speaker 2: it anyway, and he smile, he laughed. He said, I
Speaker 2: felt I needed to answer that one.
Speaker 3: And he said he does think safeguarding includes not inmbuzzling
Speaker 3: funds exactly.
Speaker 2: He had a humor about him, which was also to
Speaker 2: his credit, and the judge, you know, it's funny. The
Speaker 2: judge obviously had an abstract dislike of him by the
Speaker 2: time he arrived here for his trial, and based on
Speaker 2: Sam seeming, they're going to be testing every.
Speaker 1: Rule of house arrest.
Speaker 2: And the judge has a reputation is he and judge,
Speaker 2: But you could tell the judge is taking an interest
Speaker 2: in him.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, like you have a really unusual way of
Speaker 1: answering questions.
Speaker 2: But he also like there was a moment when the
Speaker 2: judge needed blockchain or something explained, and asked Sam to
Speaker 2: explain it.
Speaker 1: Sam's a wonderful explainer.
Speaker 2: You can see how good a teacher it is, right
Speaker 2: like when he wants to explain something here, really very
Speaker 2: good at doing it. And the judge was, I could
Speaker 2: tell it if this thing we're going to jump the shark.
Speaker 2: The judge would get really interested in crypto in the
Speaker 2: middle of this trial and just sort of pause the
Speaker 2: trial to have Sam teach him all about crypto because.
Speaker 1: He's just so interesting what he's learning from Sam.
Speaker 2: And there was a little of that going on, and
Speaker 2: in the darkness of his soul, in his most private place,
Speaker 2: I think the judge would say, this is an interesting person.
Speaker 3: And the judge even made a bit of a comment
Speaker 3: like that. At one point, Sam BigMan Freed said I'm
Speaker 3: not sure if I should answer this question. He said
Speaker 3: something legal like, I'm worried it's outside the scope. I
Speaker 3: forget what exact legal term was, and the judg responded,
Speaker 3: leave that to me. You know your role is to
Speaker 3: explain blockchain basically, that's right to me, Yeah, exactly exactly.
Speaker 2: Judging Sam will be right back. Welcome back to judging, Sam.
Speaker 1: I've just arrived at the court.
Speaker 2: It's the first time I've been here twenty seven days.
Speaker 2: I've been on the road, and I've had a couple
Speaker 2: like reactions.
Speaker 1: It's funny.
Speaker 2: I feel like I've walked into your high school. That's
Speaker 2: what I They already have their clicks. Yes, they already
Speaker 2: know they're having lunch with. Yeah, they already know who's
Speaker 2: they're going to share notes with, and who's okay to
Speaker 2: talk to and who's not there. There is this obviously
Speaker 2: a group, and you're included in this group of the
Speaker 2: highly ambitious, aggressive people who get here early enough.
Speaker 1: To get into the courtroom.
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean I talked to one coming out the door.
Speaker 2: She says she got to hear a bit before three
Speaker 2: in the morning, and she was seventh and one.
Speaker 3: And then, were you like, my producer is such as
Speaker 3: slacker because she got to here four thirty.
Speaker 1: I met the one of the marshalls who who watches
Speaker 1: the door and delightful guy. Oh, they're great, delightful guy.
Speaker 1: But this was even better. He listens to this podcast.
Speaker 2: Now, if you'd ask me, what if I was a
Speaker 2: marshal in a courthouse and I spent my day watching
Speaker 2: that trial, what would I do with my free time afterwards?
Speaker 1: It would not be.
Speaker 2: Listening to a podcast about the trial. But he's listening
Speaker 2: to the podcast about the trial and he's read the book.
Speaker 2: And his attitude about that was, it's I really love
Speaker 2: knowing the story like the person. You know, you don't
Speaker 2: get the story here. You get none of the humanity,
Speaker 2: you get none of the real person. And that was
Speaker 2: and that's something you notice in these from these trials,
Speaker 2: as you're getting such a weird, abstracted sliver of the
Speaker 2: experience and none of the context. And the only way
Speaker 2: you're getting the characters really is indirectly from how they
Speaker 2: are on the witness stand.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, and then you end up filling a lot
Speaker 3: of the gaps or your imagination.
Speaker 1: That's right, and that's that's right. So, uh, what else
Speaker 1: did I notice?
Speaker 2: How chill like the guards are going into the place
Speaker 2: like it's not it doesn't feel like all these people,
Speaker 2: these peop we should be in charge of TSA if
Speaker 2: TSA ran as well as this, and it was just
Speaker 2: fun to go through and as easy and as reasonable
Speaker 2: like flying would be a different experience.
Speaker 1: So I was surprised by that.
Speaker 2: I thought it was gonna be miserable bureaucracy, and actually
Speaker 2: they're like they're kind of really good at what they whatever.
Speaker 1: They run this place.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm surprised by art struck by how authoritative the
Speaker 2: judge is, Like, he just runs the thing it is
Speaker 2: that he's not. He just takes no nonsense.
Speaker 1: And I can almost I get the point today where
Speaker 1: I could guess where he was gonna lose his patience.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you were telling me, and then right after that you.
Speaker 2: Could see I could say, this is bothering me, So
Speaker 2: I bet it's bothering him. And then right away, boom,
Speaker 2: he's on it. And I thought that's kind of It's
Speaker 2: kind of cool. I imagined him. I don't know it,
Speaker 2: and I imagine, but I didn't imagine it would be quite.
Speaker 1: As aggress as aggressive as he was. This is a
Speaker 1: side and kind of narcissistic note. It was kind of
Speaker 1: funny walking too. Everybody wanted me to signed books.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I thought that It's funny that I didn't realize
Speaker 2: the book was quite as well.
Speaker 3: People bring your book every day, it's not just because
Speaker 3: they knew you were coming.
Speaker 2: It was fun to see that people are kind of
Speaker 2: in the middle of it. And so this is like
Speaker 2: this other reality. There's this trial going on in this
Speaker 2: libretto to the opera, so I wasn't expecting that.
Speaker 1: What else caught my eye? Oh well, you know, if
Speaker 1: you're in there, just what a partial view you get.
Speaker 1: This is true to life.
Speaker 2: No matter where you are, you always just see where
Speaker 2: your view is your view, And just because you're in
Speaker 2: the courtroom doesn't mean you have the whole.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have the view of either the witness or
Speaker 1: maybe you can see the jury.
Speaker 2: You can see maybe the sides of the faces of
Speaker 2: Sam's parents, see backs of the prosecutors. Just because you're there,
Speaker 2: it doesn't mean you're there. My normal reporting, like instinct
Speaker 2: is to literally when I'm to walk around to.
Speaker 1: See whatever the setting is.
Speaker 2: If it's like ftx's office in the Bahamas, I would
Speaker 2: just I'd sit in different places. I'd see it, trying
Speaker 2: to see it from every angle, because you never know
Speaker 2: what you're missing if you're just sitting in one spot
Speaker 2: and here you're kind of.
Speaker 1: Constrained because you can't quite do that. Yeah, there's a
Speaker 1: little part of me that was a tiny bit frustrated.
Speaker 2: Did pick out the guy on the on the jury
Speaker 2: who was apparently my former Solomon Brother's colleague, And I
Speaker 2: find it just wild that the person who probably.
Speaker 1: Knows the most about this and can explain to everybody else,
Speaker 1: was it Solomon the Brothers me, there's something full circle
Speaker 1: is about this.
Speaker 2: I just can't get out of my head because I
Speaker 2: really was thinking of Liars Poker and I read this book.
Speaker 1: I thought, it's like it's another version of what's supposed
Speaker 1: to be a.
Speaker 2: Business being actually, you know, off the rails, frat house
Speaker 2: kind of the behavior that's going on in here bears
Speaker 2: no relation to what people think when they think corporation.
Speaker 2: It's this all over again, but it's being recreated in
Speaker 2: crypto different characters. It's nerds rather than jocks, and it's
Speaker 2: but it's but same little bit of the same vibe.
Speaker 2: And so that we have the guy who was there
Speaker 2: at the start sitting there in the trial making evaluations
Speaker 2: of this version of it.
Speaker 1: I wonder if it's gonna that Penty's gonna drop for him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I wonder he's been paying attention, close.
Speaker 1: Attention, seemed you know, I only on a glimpse of it.
Speaker 3: So tomorrow Sam Mgmunfreed will take the stand for real
Speaker 3: in front of a jury. Yes, what are you interested
Speaker 3: to see?
Speaker 1: See?
Speaker 2: If he had adjusts in response to what just happened,
Speaker 2: and makes a point of trying to answer simply and
Speaker 2: directly questions every possible question that could be answered simply
Speaker 2: and directly. And if he doesn't, how that plays, And
Speaker 2: there'll be lots of root questions and he'll be asked
Speaker 2: and he'll have to answer, and I think he has
Speaker 2: answers for some of them. I think this is that
Speaker 2: it's it's some ways a very simple case, but some
Speaker 2: ways a very complicated case. And I think that we'll
Speaker 2: see both both sides of it tomorrow, and I suspect
Speaker 2: it's gonna.
Speaker 1: Go on all day.
Speaker 3: I definitely. I mean Sam doesn't answer quickly.
Speaker 1: No, he's drawing this out right.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm excited to see you tomorrow.
Speaker 1: All right, see tomorrow.
Speaker 2: We'll be back in your feed soon with more expert
Speaker 2: analysis and news from Sam Bekman Freed's trial. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 2: Lydia Get is our court reporter. Katherine Gerardeau and Nisha
Speaker 2: Venken produced this show. Sophie Crane is our editor. Our
Speaker 2: music was composed by Matthias Bossi and John Evans of
Speaker 2: stell Wagons.
Speaker 1: Symphonet.
Speaker 2: Judging Sam is a production of Pushkin Industries. Got a
Speaker 2: question or comment for me, There's a website for that
Speaker 2: atr podcast dot com. That's atr podcast dot com. To
Speaker 2: find more Pushkin podcasts, listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 2: or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If you'd like
Speaker 2: to access bonus episodes and listen ad free, don't forget
Speaker 2: to sign up for a Pushkin Plus subscription at pushkin
Speaker 2: dot fm, slash plus, or on our Apple show page