What you say seem plausible but, as an observer not privy to things, I am not sure how one can differentiate when someone is being allowed to get away versus being goaded to say incriminating things.

But If you look at the written coverage at NYT about this, you will realize that in this case it is the former and not the latter. Yes one can argue that it might have been a plan to make him comfortable to talk at the interview - but yeah :).

May be it is too subtle for me.

10 lies on 10 different topics is of greater value than spending an hour trying to pin down the one gotcha line on 1 thing.

In effect Sorkin et al interviews has MADE the fraud case for the government. The lies are evidence there was intent to defraud.

Perhaps because of SBF's own hubris and not due to the way he was questioned ?

I think it was the response to coffeezilla questions that might have him in a bind not the other mainstream journalists.