Despite the fact that it's generally seen as a very bad idea to say anything about your past conduct when you are a litigation target, and likely for a criminal case, and SBF has said his lawyers are opposed to talking to the press, SBF is nevertheless swanning about on his media tour.

Even though SBF got a bit of pushback from Sorkin on the question of co-mingling of funds when SBF tried playing, "Oh it was sort of allowed and anyway things were a mess," he and other reporters didn't probe very hard once they got his next layer of excuses: "Oh I didn't mean to do anything bad, I don't have access to records any more and my memory is fuzzy, and I really didn't have anything to do with Alameda."

Here is the Financial Times's recap from over the weekend:

Core to Bankman-Fried's account of how FTX ended up with a roughly $8bn shortfall of client assets was excessive lending by the exchange to Alameda, which ploughed the money into venture capital investments and doomed bets on digital tokens.

Bankman-Fried deflected the FT's questions about the excessive borrowing and soured investments that ultimately sank Alameda, blowing a hole in FTX's finances, and would not be drawn on the legal consequences he may face. He said he deliberately avoided getting involved in Alameda's trading and risk management to avoid conflicts with his position as chief executive of FTX, and neglected to monitor the risk they posed to the exchange.

Got that? $8 billion hole at the hedge fund Alamada. We are supposed to believe that the was the result of FTX lending to Alamada and then Alameda doing stoopid things that burned up a lot of dough. Oh, and even though SBF is responsible for (at best) crappy controls at FTX that allowed Alameda, we are also supposed to believe SBF's claims that he was not involved in what was happening at Alameda.