Roger Stone on Sunday attempted to defend himself against charges that he lied to Congress, saying that “any failure of memory on my part was without intent and would be immaterial” to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

In a seven-count grand jury indictment announced Friday, Stone was accused among other things of making “multiple false statements to [the House Intelligence Committee] about his interactions regarding Organization 1.” “Organization 1” appears to be Wikileaks, which published stolen Democratic emails during the 2016 campaign.

In an interview with Stone Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos focused on the alleged lying he did to Congress.

“You denied having any documents or text messages discussing Wikileaks or [its founder Julian] Assange, but the prosecutors in the indictment lay out several emails, dozens of text messages,” Stephanopoulos told Stone.

“They’re right, I did forget on some occasions that I had text messages and emails that are entirely exculpatory, and prove that everything I said before the House Intelligence Committee was true,” Stone began in response.

Stephanopoulos cut him off: “You say you forgot. On the day you testified you didn’t have any exchanges with [New York comedian and radio host Randy] Credico, you had 30 exchanges, 30 text exchanges with Randy Credico on the day you said you didn’t remember it!”

Stone changed topics, attacking Credico briefly before Stephanopoulos interjected. The indictment claimed Stone lied to Congress about Credico being his go-between to Wikileaks.

“I will prove in court that any failure of memory on my part was without intent and would be immaterial,” Stone said. “I am human, and I did make some errors, but they’re errors that would be inconsequential within the scope of this investigation.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who spoke to Stephanopoulos right after Stone, said of the indictment Stone’s denial of wrongdoing: “These are very specific allegations of lies and witness intimidation. They’re matters that will be easily provable. These are not ambiguous statements, they’re very detailed, and I think he’s going to need a much better defense than the one you just heard.”