OK. That's helpful. Thanks.

Bannon's purported lie is found in two statements.

A. He told a Congressional committee, specifically Adam Schiff, that he had not spoken to Roger Stone about Wikileaks and Julian Assange ever.

B. He told a DOJ prosecutor that he did in fact discuss WikiLeaks and Assange with Stone before he took over the Trump campaign in August 2016.

There does appear to be a lie here. Bannon's lawyer says the discrepancy is due to Schiff's disjointed and unprofessional questioning. Stone continues to deny that he spoke about WikiLeaks and Assange. Stone has said on Parler that the latter statement helped sink him. I don't recall enough detail from the Stone case to understand why that is.

At any rate, I don't have enough here to condemn Bannon. The main issue is whether B is true or not. If it is, then I don't see what Stone can complain about. And frankly I find it hard to believe that they didn't discuss WikiLeaks and Assange, since it was huge at the time.

Perhaps they had some kind of private agreement where they'd both deny it, and Stone feels betrayed that Bannon didn't go through with it?

Stone does point out something interesting. I think Turley does as well. Bannon wasn't prosecuted for inconsistent statements under oath. What? Stone thinks DOJ put pressure on him to lie in exchange for something, perhaps immunity from prosecution for his lie in A/B.