The podcast discusses the ongoing trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, including jury selection, opening statements, and the first witnesses. It explores the strategies of the prosecution and defense, the importance of witness testimony, and the challenges faced by Bankman-Fried. The chapter also touches on the security measures in the courtroom, Michael Lewis's presence, and provides a recap of the trial and courtroom experience.
The prosecution painted Sam Bankman-Fried as a villain, using bombastic opening statements and simple sentences to convey the idea that the case is not complicated.
The government's witness testimony, including a French commodities trader and colleagues of Sam, is strengthening the argument against Sam and portraying his actions in a negative light.
Deep dives
Prosecution presents strong opening statements
The prosecution delivered bombastic opening statements, emphasizing how the defendant, Sam Bentman Fried, lied and stole billions of dollars from thousands of people. They used simple sentences to convey the idea that the case is not complicated, portraying Sam as a villain. The defense, on the other hand, took a softer approach, presenting Sam as a young guy and math nerd who started a company that didn't work out. The defense lawyer used the metaphor of flying a plane as you're building it to explain what happened. The opening statements were strong and vivid for the prosecution, while the defense statements were somewhat boring and less impactful.
Witness testimony strengthens the government's case
The prosecution called their first witness, a French commodities trader who lost a substantial amount of money on FTX, the defendant's cryptocurrency exchange. Although not the most sympathetic victim, the witness provided evidence showing how he believed his investments in FTX were safe and how he trusted Sam Bentman Fried. The government also presented witnesses who had worked closely with Sam, such as a college friend and a chief technology officer. The friend testified about Sam's awareness of the financial troubles at Alameda, leading up to FTX's bankruptcy filing. The CTO admitted to giving special privileges to Alameda and lying about it to the public, further damaging Sam's case. So far, the witness testimony is strengthening the government's argument and painting a negative picture of Sam's actions.
Defense strategy focuses on undermining cooperation witnesses
The defense strategy revolves around undermining the credibility of the cooperation witnesses. They pointed out that the cooperators may be motivated by their need to say what the government wants to hear, rather than telling the truth. The defense emphasized that the witnesses could be mistaken or misinterpreting statements, using the defense theme of hindsight bias. They aim to create doubt by suggesting that the cooperators are wrong in their interpretation of events, while not directly calling them liars. The defense also attempted to counter the government's argument by highlighting the complexity of the case and downplaying Sam's role as a villain. So far, the defense is trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case and provide alternative explanations for the alleged financial crimes.
SBF’s trial has been on for three days, and a lot has happened: jury selection, opening statements, and the first witnesses. Pushkin co-founder Jacob Weisberg sits down with reporter Lidia Jean Kott and Rebecca Mermelstein, a partner at the law firm O’Melveny and Myers, to talk about what’s happened in court so far.
This conversation was recorded on October 5 at 3 pm ET.
Questions for Michael? Submit them by clicking the link in our show notes or visiting atrpodcast.com
To listen to all of our coverage ad-free, sign up for Pushkin plus on the Against The Rules show page in Apple Podcasts or at Pushkin.fm/plus