The statute they are charging him with says he has to have made an untrue statement of a "material" fact. So his defense is what he said was not an untrue state

The statute they are charging him with says he has to have made an untrue statement of a "material" fact. So his defense is what he said was not an untrue statement of a "material" fact. You could make the argument that his discussions with the Saudi's let him to believe that what he was saying was factual.