It's a bit of a weird answer from CZ, but it could be a kind of purposeful reading the answer out of context.  

because CZ is correct when it comes to the possibility that Binance will not have to give back $2.1 billion due to clawbacks.

So surely one thing is if clients continue to withdraw money, then does Binance have such money. .then the answer to that should be that they do.

Now the answer to a clawback question would be that fuck that shit.. we are not giving any of it back, and the lawyers will figure out a way that we do not have to .. but if we were to have to give it back, then we would be able to handle it.. but at this point, we doubt that it is likely that we are going to have to give it back because of what it was and how it was structured.. so it is pure speculation that we would even have to give it back.

I think that there is just a confounding of information and CZ should not have to answer those kinds of legal strategy and speculation questions.. so in that sense, he said the right thing, but it just appears that CZ is being evasive because the questions of client funds and the questions of having to give back the money from the proceeds of a loan are different categories of kinds of money.

CZ seems smarter than that.. and there seems to be some out of context in the clip, and it appears as if CZ should understand what she is asking, but the reporter rolls her eyes because she seems to be wanting to create an impression that CZ is being unduly evasive when he largely gave the right answer but it could have seemed to have been answering a different question... it is not a difficult answer if talking about client funds (being SAFU).. pretty basic.. but when it comes to money that Binance had lent to FTX and then FTX was paying it back.. that is another category of kinds of funds in which Binance may well not have very high odds of having to pay that back... that's why lawyers working on those kinds of matters.