Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Barbara Fried And Joseph Bankman Speak; Trump Says He's Considering "Winding Down" Military Efforts As The Thousands More Marines, Sailor Are deployed. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired March 21, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:25]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Mixed messages in the war with Iran, I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs. Officials say thousands more marines and sailors now headed to the Middle East. They come from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group, a rapid response force of about 2,000 marines, aircraft and warships built to conduct combat operations from the sea without a permanent base on the ground. At the same time last night, President Trump took to Truth Social, writing that he's considering, quote, "winding down U.S. military operations in the Middle East." Meantime, a U.S. official says Iran launched two ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, a joint U. S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean.

But the official says the missiles missed the base. This, as sources say, President Trump is weighing options that could include targeting Kharg Island near the Strait of Hormuz. And at the same time, the Washington Post is reporting that there's a key fault line developing between Washington and Jerusalem. The White House says its goals are focused disrupting Iran's military capabilities and preventing a nuclear weapon. Israel, by contrast, appears willing to go further, targeting the regime itself.

And all of this is playing out with real global consequences. Oil prices have surged more than 40 percent since the war began and President Trump is now pressuring NATO allies to do more, even as the Pentagon prepares options for possible U.S. ground forces, a step the president says he has not yet decided to take. So where is all of this pointing? Joining me now, CNN Senior Military Analyst and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis.

Admiral, nice to see you again. We're sending thousands of marines to the Middle East. And meanwhile, the president via Truth Social says he's considering winding down operations. Read those tea leaves.

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS, CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: I think they're both right. Meaning he is going to bring those marines into position to conduct a variety of operations. A Marine Expeditionary Unit, pretty competent and capable force, 2,500 marines in the first one on USS Tripoli, another 2,500 on the second. So bring those forces in position, use them to continue to pressure the regime and at the same time talk about finding an off ramp.

I don't actually see those two things to be in conflict. I think the former can help you achieve the latter.

SMERCONISH: What can a Marine Expeditionary Unit actually do?

STAVRIDIS: Michael, I grew up in the Marine Corps. My dad was colonel of marines. World War II, Korea, Vietnam. I know Marine Corps DNA as well as anybody who's not a marine. If you ask a marine what a Marine Expeditionary Unit can be, they will say anything.

That's a bit of a hyperbole, but they're very capable at raids from the sea. They can seize and occupy territory. They can conduct rescue operations. They could go after enriched uranium. It's a -- it's a huge amount of capability that can be packed in a pretty small footprint kept at sea.

Now, having said all that, the primary thing people are talking about is Kharg Island, as you mentioned in the read in. And here you've got an island two miles by four miles. It's roughly the size of Iwo Jima. And we ought to remember the island of Iwo Jima in the Second World War, we had 100,000 troops taking that down. Now, some big differences.

Car is coral, so the enemy can't really dig in the way the Japanese did in the volcanic sands of Iwo Jima. It's lightly defended at the moment. Iwo Jima was heavily defended, and it's within immediate range of our air and sea superiority. So as a mission, I suspect that is what's being considered right now.

I think one Marine Expeditionary Unit could take that mission on, seize it, hold it. A second one would be reassuring for the commander. And then you turn to the Iranians and you at that point, say, open the strait or will hold on to this and cut off your economy. Ninety percent of their oil flows through Kharg Island.

SMERCONISH: Is the deployment that you're describing what boots on the ground looks like in Iran?

[09:05:06]

STAVRIDIS: I think by definition, if they seize and hold the territory of Kharg Island. Yes, that's boots on the ground. Now, they could simply marshal up around it and threaten it. They could raid it and disable it. There are gradations here and there are other missions those marines could take on.

But this is a big decision facing President Trump.

And final thought, Michael, if we did seize it and hold it, that could get challenging. Don't forget it's only 15 miles off the Iranian coast. The Iranians have a million man army. They have excellent Special Forces, Quds troops, and they have not air or sea superiority. But boy, proximity means a lot.

So resupplying those marines and defending them could become a challenge.

SMERCONISH: Might one of the other missions under consideration be to use this force on the Iranian side of the Strait of Hormuz?

STAVRIDIS: I think so. And if you look at the strait itself, it's about 100 miles of territory on the northern side of the strait. That's Iranian sovereign territory. You could use those Marines to conduct raids to go after mine laying capability, small boat storage, short range ballistic missiles. No shortage of targets there.

So I think that probably is on the menu that's been placed in front of the president as well. And again, if you bring a second Marine Expeditionary Unit in, then you could conceivably do both of those. Although, boy, as a commander, I'm going to want to see him together.

SMERCONISH: Admiral, what do you think the exit ramp is? I have no doubt that the President is eager to, quote, unquote, "wind down," as he said in that Truth social post. At the same time, he needs to have something to show for the effort. Maybe he would make the case that he's already destabilized the regime, destabilize their nuclear capability. But how can you see this ending sooner rather than later?

STAVRIDIS: Two flies in the ointment of what you just described, Michael. The first is a thousand pounds of enriched uranium somewhere in the country, probably in Isfahan. So that I think has to be resolved before President Trump can simply walk away from this and declare victory.

The second one I think is more easily achievable, and that's reopening the Strait of Hormuz. So to answer the question, the off ramp is coerce the Iranians into backing down on the Strait of Hormuz. I think at that point you could declare victory and simultaneously open serious negotiations or conduct a raid or try and destroy from the air the uranium. I think if President Trump can say, I opened this strait, I degraded their military 90 percent and I got to the uranium, I think he can in fact declare victory and walk away from this.

SMERCONISH: Final question to go back to where I began, hopefully for a less than 60 second response. Must the U.S. and Israel be on the same page for this to end?

STAVRIDIS: Boy, it would help a lot, I think. However, at the moment, the Israelis are seized with the idea of regime change that is extraordinarily difficult, not completely impossible, but difficult to achieve from the air. I think, however, the U.S. is very much the senior partner in this operation. At the end of the day, I think what President Trump decides is how this thing will end.

SMERCONISH: Admiral, we always appreciate your expertise and contribution. Thank you.

And for everybody at home, hit me up on social media. Follow me on X, follow me on YouTube. Perhaps I'll respond to your comment during the course of the program. Wouldn't it be terrible if Trump's military efforts finally brought regime change and some peace to the Iranian people? I guess. Kelly Ann -- Kell-Ann says tongue in cheek. Hey, I'm for victory. I made it clear here last week when we talked about the David Boies Wall Street Journal essay where Boies comes at it as smart guy, trial lawyer, paying close attention to the world events and says in Boies words, Trump's not my guy, but we're in it now and I want him to succeed. I think that should sum up the thinking for lots of people.

SMERCONISH: Coming up, my thoughts on what's really behind these long and miserable TSA lines, which leads me to this week's poll question at smerconish.com. Who is more to blame for the DHS shutdown? Are you blaming the Democrats? Are you blaming the Republicans? Are you blaming both?

And the parents of convicted FTX founder and Sam Bankman-Fried sit down with me. It's their first televised interview as their son serves a 25-year sentence for fraud and conspiracy, insisting it was never fraud.

[09:10:11]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: There's a perception, you know this, I don't mean to be offensive, that Sam is a crypto version of Bernie Madoff.

JOSEPH BANKMAN, SAM BANKMAN-FRIED': Bernie Madoff had a Ponzi scheme. Sam built billion dollar businesses in a new field and was a pioneer for doing so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: It's a face off. There are two facial recognition stories and they're driving the news. One is about requiring photo ID to vote, and the other is whether law enforcement should be allowed to shield their faces. Voter ID sounds appealing in the abstract. Most of us routinely show identification to buy alcohol, cash a check, board a flight, enter a secure building.

[09:15:01]:

So why not for something as important as exercising the franchise? Which may be why a new CBS News poll found that 80 percent of Americans support requiring a photo ID to vote, with about two thirds also backing proof of citizenship. The harder question is what kind of ID should count. Senate Republicans are pushing the SAVE act, which would require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote. Critics warned that millions of Americans lack those documents and that young voters and voters of color would be disproportionately affected, a major reason that Democrats oppose the bill.

But here's an irony not often noted. Many Democrats who resist asking voters to show their faces to vote or prove citizenship would love to unmask law enforcement, especially in the area of immigration. Democrats in Congress are pushing rules that would bar masks for immigration officers, require clear identification, and mandate greater transparency. Republicans and the Trump administration argue that such regulations would endanger officers and hamper their work. This disagreement is having major ramifications.

For one thing, it's the reason why people are standing in airport screening lines for hours. The government has stopped funding the DHS, and an increasing number of TSA agents are quitting or calling in sick in response to not being paid. Elon Musk took to X just this morning to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse. Supporters say that the issue is about officer safety. In the digital age, a single encounter can be filmed.

It can be uploaded and shared within minutes. Names, addresses, family members can be exposed. Masks, they argue, are a common sense protection against doxing and retaliation, especially when officers confront smuggling networks, gangs or other organized groups. The critics say that it's all about accountability. In a free society, police power should be exercised in the open.

If officers are allowed to detain, search, use force, the public should be able to identify them. Clear badges, visible identification are part of that principle. When officers wear masks, critics argue, accountability erodes and policing can appear more militarized than protective. So photo IDs at the voting booth and officers anyone can clearly identify, these are two issues facing us today, as it were.

And here we are again, locked in another partisan standoff where ordinary Americans are the ones left waiting. And not just metaphorically, literally waiting, standing, shoeless, and airport security lines that crawl for hours because the folks in charge can't manage to keep the government open or the workforce paid. The truth is, showing an ID to register and vote is reasonable, provided it's the kind of photo ID that people in a given community already possess, not some document requirement designed to exclude. We should all want more people voting. It's our best way to water down the fringes on the left and the right.

And the same principle of practicality applies to masks for those enforcing the law. In today's charged and hypervisible and sometimes politically violent environment, there may be limited circumstances where covering an officer's face is less about hiding identity and more about protecting their safety. But let me be clear, that should be the exception, not the rule. In a free society, we should generally see the faces and the badge numbers of those exercising police power. Accountability requires it.

The challenge is recognizing that both things can be true at once, that transparency is essential, and that in rare high risk situations, some level of protection may be warranted. But that kind of balanced thinking doesn't fit neatly on a campaign flyer or cable chiron. It's easier for both sides to score points than to solve problems. So the shouting will continue, the lines will stretch, and the rest of us will keep inching forward with our driver's licenses in hand not to vote, but to prove a point simply to make our next flight. Provided, of course, that it's a real ID. I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. Who is more to blame for the DHS shutdown? The Democrats, the Republicans, or both?

You know how I'm voting.

[09:19:24]

Still to come, more of your social media reaction. And then, after a jury convicted him on seven counts related to fraud, conspiracy and money laundering, Sam Bankman-Fried's parents sit down with me for their first television interview arguing that their son was wrongfully convicted. Make sure you sign up for my newsletter at smerconish.com when you're voting on today's poll question. You'll get the work of our illustrators, including the newest Eric Allie. And check this one out from Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Follow me on X. Follow me on YouTube. Maybe I will read your response during the course of the program. Retired Florida Truck Driver Frank, aren't the Democrats openly talking about the pain they are causing the American people? There's your answer.

My answer is I blame both of them. I do believe if you pushed me between one or the other, I would say it's the Democrats who have marginalized the TSA agents in this instance. And I think it's horrible. The way in which they've been used, the TSA agents as pawns. I flew twice this week and without incident.

[09:25:03]

So it's not like I'm experiencing what they're experiencing in Atlanta and elsewhere. But I took a look at the dynamic. These are the people who are literally on the front line of protecting the country. Think Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Number two, it's a very dank work environment.

Would you do that job? Would you stand there for hours on end? And that would be your employment. And three, they don't do it for much money. My so called intern, Eric X, had the best idea.

There ought to be a bucket at the front of every line right before you go through the conveyor belt. We all throw in a fiver and make sure that these people are covered and that they get to whack that up. Nobody would call in sick. Nobody. That would be such a great message for Washington too.

Like you can keep screwing around. We, the American people, we're going to take care of these people. That's how it ought to end. And kudos to Elon Musk for being willing to write a check as well. I just think it's so -- it's terrible.

And such a sign of our government dysfunction.

Anyway, what's next? OK, that teaser clip just confirmed my suspicion. His parents are on a PR tour for leniency. It was a fraud and it can't be sugarcoated.

Better test beta testing. Stick around and watch the interview. I mean my own view. Maybe I should wait until you watch it before I weigh in on it. But my own view is that many of us reached conclusions about Sam Bankman-Fried without really understanding the facts of the case concluded in our minds.

I did. I did. You'll hear a question that I put to them where I say, you know, isn't Sam just a crypto version of Bernie Madoff? The initial eye opener for me was Michael Lewis' book. You know, Michael Lewis, "Moneyball," "Liars," "Poker," really a skilled and respected business journalist. He wrote "Going Infinite."

I read that book and I thought, wow, there's a lot more to this case that I didn't recognize. So when the opportunity arose to interview the parents, yes, I'm game and I learned lots of things. And I'm here simply to say it's much more nuanced than perhaps we've been led to believe. And I'll say something else. A 25-year sentence for someone with no criminal record and a nonviolent crime.

Just think about that, 25 years for a guy in his early 30s for a non- violent crime. Whatever you may think of his conduct, mull that sentence over and get ready to watch it.

OK? Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at smerconish.com where I am asking this, who is more to blame for the D -- you just heard my answer. I'm voting both. But if you force my hand between the D's and the R's, I'm blaming the D's.

And as we mentioned, still to come, their son was sentenced to 25 years after the collapse of crypto empire FTX. And now for the first time, Sam Bankman-Fried's parents ready to tell their side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA FRIED, SAM BANKMAN-FRIED'S MOTHER: I think we have a really serious problem with prosecutions being used for political ambition of prosecutors and other people in the government. I am describing a part of the Biden administration that I think did really bad things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:45]

SMERCONISH: Before he was even 30, he was one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Sam Bankman-Fried was so famous the world knew him by his initials, SBF. He founded a crypto exchange called FTX. But during a crypto crash in November of 2022, FTX couldn't fulfill customer withdrawals, triggering investigations that led to Bankman-Fried's indictment and later his conviction on charges related to fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy. Today, he's 34 years old and just under 23 months into 25 year prison sentence. His parents, Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman, have agreed to this first sit down television interview. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: OK. Who's nervous?

JOSEPH BANKMAN, FATHER OF SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: I'm always nervous.

BARBARA FRIED, MOTHER OF SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: It's only our sons life.

BANKMAN: We're going to follow you around.

SMERCONISH: So, whose office is that?

FRIED: That's my office.

SMERCONISH: That's your office?

FRIED: Yes --

SMERCONISH (voice-over): Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman --

FRIED: Come on in.

SMERCONISH: -- esteemed scholars and Stanford professors better known today as Sam Bankman-Fried's parents. Sam was 25 years old when he started a crypto trading firm called Alameda Research. And then two years later, a crypto exchange, FTX. FTX was valued at $32 billion at its peak. During the company's meteoric rise, there were celebrity commercials.

TOM BRADY, FORMER PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER: FTX is the safest and easiest way to buy and sell crypto. It's the best way to get in the game.

SMERCONISH (voice-over): He was celebrated as a crypto Robin hood.

KATE ROONEY, CNBC REPORTER: He spent hundreds of millions of dollars to bail out struggling companies.

SMERCONISH: In November of 2022, facing a barrage of customer withdrawals, the company's imploded. Sam was accused of fraudulently using customer funds to expand his crypto empire. He was immediately and almost universally cast as a villain.

JIM CRAMER, CNBC HOST: Remember, we used to say that Sam Bankman-Fried was JP Morgan? Well, that was stupid.

SMERCONISH (voice-over): He was found guilty of seven counts of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison in 2024.

[09:35:00]

FRIED: The Biden administration had decided to destroy crypto.

SMERCONISH: To some, this is going to sound like a jailhouse conversion. (voice-over): Two years later, his parents insist Sam is innocent. They're sitting down for the first time on camera to talk about what they see as a politically motivated sentence.

(on camera): What's it like when you go and visit him in person?

FRIED: It's -- you know, you never accommodate to that image. So, it's always a shock and, you know, a horror. I mean, he's 34 years old. To see a brilliant young life destroyed it's -- there's nothing like it.

SMERCONISH: The actuarial tables suggest that if he does all that time and comes out, you won't be here to greet him. Surely that weighs on the two of you.

BANKMAN: We think about it all the time.

FRIED: Yes. I would say also, you know, grief for me is a constant companion. It's not just anticipating that I will not be here for his release, it's that he's not here now. He's not living a life.

So, this is Sam's room. I mean, it's been painted and --

SMERCONISH: When he was on house arrest --

FRIED: He stayed here.

SMERCONISH: So, was he back in the old bedroom?

FRIED: Yes. Yes, here.

SMERCONISH: And this was the old bedroom?

FRIED: This was the old bedroom.

SMERCONISH: What was it like? Were the media outside? Were there people coming and going?

FRIED: It was -- it was a very, very, very hard time. Because, I think, it was the first time Sam was really coming to terms with what had happened to him.

SMERCONISH (voice-over): Barbara and Joseph were there for their son's trial. Before the collapse, Joseph worked as a paid adviser to FTX for 11 months. Emails cited in court documents suggest that Barbara advised on political contributions, but she did not work for the company. The Howard Baker question, what did you know and when did you know it relative to the fraud?

BANKMAN: I got to do wonderful charity with Sam. I didn't get involved in the business operations. You know, we do have to say that when you say, what did you know relative to the fraud, there's an appeal on the case. But we don't think it's fraud.

SMERCONISH: FTX is an exchange.

FRIED: Yes. SMERCONISH: Alameda is a trading company.

FRIED: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Both were started by Sam.

FRIED: Correct.

SMERCONISH: Customer monies in FTX ended up in Alameda. How am I doing so far?

BANKMAN: Yes.

FRIED: Yes, I guess. Yes.

BANKMAN: They were borrowed by Alameda from FTX.

FRIED: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Were they not supposed to be custodial, hands off monies and weren't they used improperly? Isn't that what the jury found?

BANKMAN: They were not used improperly because on the exchange you put -- you were able to put in money and you're able to borrow money. Alameda acted like everybody else, putting in money and borrowing money.

SMERCONISH (voice-over): According to the Department of Justice, Bankman-Fried directed FTX employees to alter the exchanges code to allow Alameda to effectively borrow unlimited funds from FTX.

(on camera): Here's what the prosecutor said at the trial. He took the money. He knew it was wrong. He did it anyway.

BANKMAN: Well, he never -- the money was always there, first of all. Alameda always had more than enough security to cover everything. And so, that's why everyone has now gotten paid back. The money never left the companies. These were very profitable companies with billions of extra assets.

SMERCONISH: Let me just ask a very basic question.

FRIED: Yes.

SMERCONISH: So what happened to all the money? Where is all the money?

FRIED: All of the money was turned over by Sam voluntarily when there was a liquidity crisis. All of the assets ended up in the estate in FTX which was taken over by the debtor, so-called debtors, who ran the bankruptcy. All of the money it was there, every penny of it.

SMERCONISH: Are you telling me everybody's been made whole?

FRIED: Everybody has been made whole with 18 to 43 percent interest.

[09:40:01] SMERCONISH (voice-over): Distributions are ongoing. According to the Bankruptcy Reorganization Plan, creditors should be repaid their allowed claims plus interest. But some creditors argue that isn't being made whole. Their settlements were based on the value of their holdings at the time that FTX filed for bankruptcy, when crypto was low, and their investments would have been worth significantly more in the years since had their assets not been frozen.

And while it is true that FTX eventually was able to cover its debts, that wasn't a sure thing when the exchange collapsed. That's because Alameda had invested those customer funds in a variety of assets that were difficult to value and couldn't be sold immediately.

(on camera): OK, but let me play devil's advocate with you.

FRIED: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Judge Lewis Kaplan said -- I'm going to paraphrase but I think I'll get it right. During the course of the sentencing he said, if a thief takes the loot to Vegas and gambles it well, he's still a thief.

FRIED: Sure.

BANKMAN: That's right. And the problem with that --

SMERCONISH: Respond to that.

BANKMAN: -- that analogy is Sam didn't take anything to Vegas after the liquidity crisis and gamble it.

SMERCONISH: There's a perception, you know this, I don't mean to be offensive, that Sam is a crypto version of Bernie Madoff.

BANKMAN: Bernie Madoff had a Ponzi scheme. Sam built billion dollar businesses in a new field and was a pioneer for doing so. That's why they were worth so much. So, it's wholly unlike Madoff. Sam's a legitimate businessman.

FRIED: These are pictures of the kids, mostly when they were younger.

BANKMAN: As you can imagine.

SMERCONISH: Was he in his element at MIT?

FRIED: Yes.

SMERCONISH: He was.

FRIED: Well, he was in the nerd dorm.

SMERCONISH: Right.

FRIED: Imagine that. The nerd dorm of MIT.

BANKMAN: MIT. SMERCONISH: Right. I can only imagine.

BANKMAN: Yes.

FRIED: And it was pretty heady, thrilling stuff for Sam. He finally was in his element.

SMERCONISH (voice-over): In raising Sam, Barbara and Joseph emphasized utilitarianism, a philosophy that prioritizes doing the greatest good for the most people. When he got older, Sam became interested in effective altruism, a way of putting those principles into practice that emphasizes earning to give.

FRIED: He had a vision that he would earn if he got lucky, worked incredibly hard, was really smart, that he would earn enough money to make a really significant difference in this world. And he almost succeeded. He almost succeeded. And it is an incredible tragedy that he didn't.

SMERCONISH: Doesn't that also allow you to rationalize if people are getting hurt along the way --

FRIED: No.

SMERCONISH: -- I'm working toward a greater good, I'm going to --

FRIED: No.

SMERCONISH: -- use monies in a way that they shouldn't have been used because, in the end, I'm going to --

FRIED: No.

SMERCONISH: -- be charitable?

FRIED: No, I think people who work with him would say he was generous and kind and thoughtful to an extreme. He always cared about the welfare of people around him.

SMERCONISH (voice-over): In February, Bankman-Fried filed a motion for a new trial claiming that expert testimony and newly discovered evidence would have shown that FTX remained solvent and also requesting a new judge be assigned.

FRIED: There's a larger context here which we haven't even addressed, which is that Sam's prosecution was essentially political. The Biden administration had decided to destroy crypto in -- you know, I don't know, strangle the baby in the crib if I can use that horrible metaphor. And instead of simply announcing, we are not going to legalize it and, in fact, here's how we're going to punish it. They quite deliberately tried to sabotage the industry behind the scenes and prevent efforts to legalize it, license it, regulate it.

SMERCONISH: To some, this is going to sound like a jailhouse conversion by the mom to now blame the former administration where Sam donated $5 million. FRIED: It's not a jailhouse conversion. I mean, I'm describing what, I believe, happened not just in Sam's case, but in a lot of cases. I think we have a really serious problem with prosecution being used for political ambition, prosecutors, and other people in the government. I am describing a part of the Biden administration that I think did really bad things.

[09:45:02]

SMERCONISH: The perception, I think, is one of well, Sam is, you know, a northern California progressive liberal money to Biden in the Democratic -- I'll ask it this way. What are his politics?

BANKMAN: Sam came to D.C. and did contribute to Biden. But when he got to D.C. -- by the time he got to D.C. he had had bad experiences with the Biden administration on crypto and in business in general. Sam's a really independent thinker. He ended up giving at least as much to Republicans. To think of Sam as a -- just a liberal Democrat was never true.

SMERCONISH: What I haven't heard you say that I thought I might hear you say is something along the lines of, even if you believe that he was guilty, guilty of the seven counts of the money laundering, the conspiracy, and the fraud, he was 32 years old without a criminal background and sentenced to 25 years, a sentence that far exceeds that which is given for many violent crimes.

FRIED: Yes.

BANKMAN: Most violent criminals don't get sentenced --

SMERCONISH: Will be released before 25 years.

BANKMAN: Any anywhere near that. And this is a case of kind of vindictiveness and political ambition gone wild to get such an extraordinary -- extreme, extreme sentence. It's shocking. Although, anyone who sat through the trial and saw the -- frankly, the contempt the judge had for our son wouldn't have been that surprised.

SMERCONISH (voice-over): Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over Sam's criminal trial, is the same federal judge who presided over E. Jean Carroll's civil trial against President Trump, a point not lost on the Bankman-Frieds.

(on camera): What does Sam Bankman-Fried's mother want to say to the president of the United States?

FRIED: I think that Sam was the victim of an out of control prosecution. And I know that Trump himself feels he was. I would say also that Sam is one of the most brilliant, talented young men of his generation. And the amount of good he can do in this world, if he is free to live a life of -- the life he wants would be of enormous benefit to the economy, to a lot of things Trump cares about in this world, and that he ought to regard Sam as a huge asset going forward for the country.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Go there now and tell me who is more to blame for the DHS shutdown, Democrats, Republicans, or both?

When you're voting, subscribe to the daily newsletter. It's free. It's worthy. And you'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Steve Breen and Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:13]

SMERCONISH: OK, so there's the result -- maybe not. I'm looking at myself. There we go. OK, guys, what the hell is this? Come on, Democrats and Democrats? Tell me in my earpiece, please, what's the real result? I'll go to my Web site myself.

OK. I'm just going to go to my Web site. Yes, we're doing it live. We're going to do it live. This will be the most intriguing part of the whole show. I have to cast my ballot. I know, I know, guys, you're all telling me I'm voting for both.

All right. Here's what I'm seeing. As of this moment in time, 43,840 have voted. Who is more to blame for the DHS shutdown? Republicans 53.05 percent. Both 35.54 percent. That's how I voted. Democrats 11.42 -- 41 percent. I think you're giving the Ds a free ride, if I may say.

And some social media reaction. If you ever had any question as to whether the show is live, well, there you go.

Both but Democrats more. They are using innocent TSA agents as cannon fodder. The precedent is set the only way to stop shutdowns in the future will be to outlaw them.

That's how I see it, Jerry. I see it in the same way that you do. I blame both of them. It's so dysfunctional. It's all about soundbites and not about civility.

But if you forced my hand between the Rs and the Ds, in this case, I would blame the Ds. More social media reaction to today's program. All of Congress should not get paid.

[09:55:00]

You know, I of course agree with that. Congress shouldn't get paid any time any part of the government is shut down. The shame of it is that so many of them are upper one percenters. They could live without a paycheck, unlike the TSA agents. More social media reaction. My favorite part of the program.

Twenty-five years sentence was issued as a deterrent against future criminals, says Roscoe.

I don't know, Roscoe, 32 years old, 32 years old, without a criminal record and nonviolent crime. If someone, God forbid, were raped, they'd be out in less than 25. That's -- that's how I look at it. It's a complicated case, and I I'm so glad that this aired today and that people had the opportunity to hear the parents and to hear them respond to, I think, the questions that needed to be asked. Like, what did you know? When did you know it? And here's what the judge said and here's what the prosecutor said. So I'm sure it will be much discussed.

Know this if you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching and we'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)