SBF's sentencing is 'almost more interesting than the trial itself', says Puck's Teddy Schleifer

Former FTXCEO Sam Bankman Freed is heading back to Manhattan federal court today for sentencing. He’s facing up to 50 years in prison, while his lawyers have asked for more than for no more than 6 1/2 years. Joining us right now is pucks Teddy Schleifer. Teddy Joe asked the question when you sat down. You didn’t answer it yet, but it’s the right one. Go ahead 40 or 640 or 6. You know there are 34 numbers in between. Look, I think, I think the consensus is that this is going to be somewhere between 20 to 30 and you know, and a lot of ways this is, this is almost more interesting to me than the trial itself. You know, there there’s obviously no debate that’s going to happen about the the the facts of what crime Sam allegedly or I guess no at this point no longer allegedly committed. It really goes to like what is the point of the criminal justice system, right? Is it to make sure that someone like Sam McEnroe doesn’t come along again and commit, you know, some future crime over some future asset class that we don’t even know about So that because that worked with Madoff, right, right, right. Or or or or is it about like what is fair, right. And and you know, the the conception of fairness here is, you know, minds might remind you of the college like philosophy seminar. But is it fairness about what Sam deserves? Is it fairness about what happens to victims? Is it fairness about what it says about America or about society? These are like, weighty questions that are aren’t easy to answer there. There is a narrative out there that I think’s been put out by Sam Bingman freed side, that, hey, the money’s all back. Everything’s here. No harm enough. Let us go. Yeah. Is that true? There were victim statements that were put in last week. So it’s complicated. It kind of depends on whether or not you believe that victims should get the money they had as of November 2022, when this whole thing collapsed, or victims should get the money that they would have today if nothing had happened. But a lot of these people have had no access to their money. And there was some. There was a woman who put in a mother who has a disabled child who has had no access to her funds and talked about how awful this has been for her. There’s no question that Sam Bankman Freed, was using the funds as a Piggy Bank for himself, for his family, for everyone around him, using those funds freely without any recourse or thought to what had would happen to these people whose money he was taking. Yeah. And for someone who spent the last 15 months, you know, worrying about whether or not the money was ever going to come back, there’s obviously this traumatic experience, obviously, as you can tell when when you read those, those letters. But yes, victims have been made whole, so to speak, and that there was never, you know, if if you had, you know, a Bitcoin in November 2022, you’re going to have the value of that Bitcoin today. But obviously Bitcoin is, you know, prices have increased by 300% in recent months. So like, it’s a question of like what, you know, what is the opportunity cost you lost by, you know, being a victim of a crime. But it was also you look, he was clearly commingling the funds, lying about it. You know, it was there was a big charade that was put up and and it’s gonna be interesting because today, you know, things, questions like that are not going to be debated. That’s right. I mean, I mean whether or not Sam intentionally committed fraud or not, that’s not that’s then that’s why I find this today more interesting in the trial because it really relates to the bigger questions about, you know, how do we judge a a person like this in society, right? Is, is, is it about, you know, for instance, I know, I know Sam was obviously not remorseful at all really during trial and and the judge clearly was agitated with him, but should that matter? That’s actually an interesting question. Like does does Sam’s attitude in court matter? That’s something that like, you know, I understand if you’re the judge, you know you want the guy to be respectful. You don’t want him to be so pedantic. Like you want them to be remorseful so that if they get out, they don’t do it again. Right. Though, you know you know Sam’s team is going to argue that he will. It’s not that he’s not not remorseful so much as it is that he’s not had the emotional IQ to. That’s a fairpoint, right. That’s that’s a fair. That’s why it’s fascinating because these, these questions aren’t aren’t easy and and they’re almost not really about the merit. Because if he’s on the spectrum and he’s not acting the way we would think typical people should act, maybe that’s not a fair charge against him. Yeah. And you know, Sam’s team is also going to argue that this is a guy who is 30 years old and if he is sent away for for 40-50 years in in a prison, you know, his parents have said they fear for his life. And you know, look, I mean obviously this is a an argument and they’re trying to convince someone to do something that would be nice to their kid, but they genuinely believe that like, you know, his lack of emotional IQ and his inability to read people could put him at danger. That’s why this, this I’m so excited for today. Not not because you want to like wash this public flogging, but I do think this is when you think about the big picture here about what is the role of like a judge, a prison. You know, you have to consider things like, is this person going to be safe? You know, should we care about his kind of mental condition, you know, over the next 40-50 years of his life or is the fraud so bad, you know, that we should just be willing to punish, punish, punish until, you know, there’s no limit to it. Those are all good questions. If if he were to get 20 to 30 years, what would that be with time off for good behavior, What kind of good behavior we’re talking about? I mean, I mean because Sam, Sam has spent the last, you know, he’s been, he’s obviously been in jail now since last August. You know, we forget and we won’t forget today because he’s going to show up, you know, not in a suit and tie and he’s not going to look the same as he did a couple a couple months ago. You know, he spent, he spent some time in prison doing some tutoring. You know, I’m sure there will be. This will be litigated for the next. You know, I’m sure we’ll get appealed immediately. There’s going to be a lot of twists and turns here, but, you know, 20 or 30 years, even if he gets a couple years off, like Elizabeth Holmes, I mean, I guess that’s fair. Leopold and Loeb, one of them got killed in prison. The other one got out early for for time served after killing a 14 year old and planning it methodically. Yeah, well, you know, lives can diverge. You know, the Madoff and Holmes comparisons are going to be made a lot today. You know, Madoff was sentenced 150 years, but he was, you know, old by the point he was sentenced. You know, Sam back and freed plausibly if at least, you know, if he was, you know, on the streets here in New York could live another, you know, 60 years, 70 years. So, like, these are really interesting questions about like what? What should the number be given his age, I think is going to be an interesting question today because this is somebody who, if you listen to Sam’s side, could have a tremendously positive impact on the world, right? If only we were so nice to let him walk free, right. That’s good questions. And we’ve seen far too often people that are out on the streets that are, yeah, repeat offenders, repeat offenders. Is is a rough week that is awake today. I mean it’s a rough week for for people that are being out there. And I I mean this was not a victimless crime obviously. But you know other people are getting getting out without bail that that have done in the remorse thing. There’s a lot of remorseful psychopaths that really aren’t right playing the playing the jury like everybody in prison is innocent too. They’re both remorseful and innocent. It’ll be, it’ll be interesting to see today, interesting to see today on the point of remorse about whether or not Sam speaks. You know, he it’s possible as parents speak, like today is is, you know, again not a trial in the merits of what happened but so he knows his he obviously testified in his defense and it kind of backfired pretty dramatically. His parents did not take the stand. It’s possible that all of them speak today not about what happened, but about whether or not this is a person who should be, you know, sent away for the rest of his life. And knowing Sam, you got to think that he’s going to bet on himself again and like, try, you know, his to do his best Braveheart speech and somehow convince the people out of this. This gives us a lot to think about and I’m going to be sitting here thinking a lot about.