Prosecutors say Roger Stone lied to Congress and impeded its investigation into election interference because if he told the truth, it would look "bad" for President Trump.

Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump, has pleaded not guilty to charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, witness tampering, and making false statements, and prosecutors allege he lied to Congress while facing questions about his knowledge of WikiLeaks' plans to release stolen emails damaging to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said Wednesday that Stone "lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign, and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump," The Washington Post reports. Stone allegedly made numerous false statements to Congress, including when he said he never talked to the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks' plans.

In fact, Zelinsky said that Stone provided regular updates to members of the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks, and he allegedly emailed Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort in August 2016 about how to "save Trump's ass," reports Vox's Andrew Prokop. This email was allegedly sent after Stone had already emailed a friend in London to see if he could get into contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

A day after Stone emailed Manafort about this plan to "save" Trump, he made a prediction on his radio show of a "devastating" WikiLeaks release, notes CNN's Andrew Kaczynski. Stone also allegedly emailed Steve Bannon to say that he knew how Trump could win, but "it ain't pretty," and he allegedly spoke with Trump over the phone the day the DNC said it had been hacked in June 2016. Stone has denied being aware of WikiLeaks' plans. Brendan Morrow

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) has a lot of people scratching their heads over how he's managing to pay the legal fees for the numerous defamation lawsuits he's filed against entities ranging from CNN to a social media parody account called Devin Nunes' Cow, McClatchy reports.

Nunes' $174,000 congressional salary is reportedly his main source of income, so McClatchy notes it's unlikely he's simply paying out of pocket. He could theoretically rely on a benefactor by setting up a legal defense fund, but he would have had to disclose that since members of Congress have strict rules against receiving gifts.

The most plausible theory, campaign finance and legal experts seem to think, is that he's paying his lawyer, Steven Biss, by promising a contingency fee, which isn't mentioned by House Ethics rules and likely doesn't require disclosure. A contingency fee means representation receives a percentage of monetary damages Nunes would be awarded if he wins the lawsuits. So, in such an instance, a lawyer would front the costs, and then bank on a big payoff down the line. But McClatchy reports that most lawyers aren't too keen on relying solely on the possibility of a win, so contingency fees aren't too common. Read more at The Fresno Bee. Tim O'Donnell

Hindsight, they say, is 20/20. Some House Republicans might be have that cliche on their minds these days.

That's because U.S. District Court Judge David Briones has continually ruled against the Trump administration's efforts to fund the president's oft-promised wall at the U.S.'s southern border by pointing to an obscure legislative provision passed by the House GOP back in 2014, Politico reports.

The provision, which prohibits the chief executive from doing anything to "eliminate or reduce funding for any program, project, or activity as proposed in the president's budget request" until Congress gives the thumbs up, was initially put in place to prevent former President Barack Obama from making cuts to space exploration. While born from a narrow dispute, the restrictions wound up being applied government-wide when enacted, and a year later Republicans added "increase" along side "eliminate" and "reduce."

Briones has utilized the language in his rulings on the wall, noting that Trump doesn't have the authority to move money from other military construction projects to fund the wall. It looks like he has his own party to thank. Read more at Politico. Tim O'Donnell

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg knows mayors. He was, after all, the leader of the nation's largest city, but even after giving up the reigns to New York, Bloomberg has spent a lot of time building relationships with city leaders through philanthropy. Now, he's hoping some mayors might help boost his young Democratic presidential campaign, The New York Times reports.

So far, eight mayors across the country are backing Bloomberg. All eight attended his boot camp for mayors at Harvard University, where they had access to advice from Bloomberg-funded experts, and more than half have reportedly received millions of dollars in grants and support packages from Bloomberg.

The mayors maintain they're endorsing Bloomberg because of his platform and ideas, not because they felt pressured on account of his aid. But some did acknowledge that his philanthropy helped establish his credibility. "Lots of people have money," said Stockton, California, Mayor Michael Cobbs, who endorsed Bloomberg's campaign earlier this week. "But the way he uses his money speaks to how he's someone who has a vision for [the Democratic Party]."

There's plenty of mayors who attended Bloomberg's Harvard program or received grants from his foundation that haven't endorsed him yet, as well, though. So it's hardly a given that he'll rack up much more support from mayors, especially when considering that one mayor who attended the Harvard program is now his Democratic presidential competitor, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg, for what it's worth, probably has a leg up on Bloomberg when it comes to the mayoral vote after more than 50 city executives pledged their support back in September. Read more at The New York Times. Tim O'Donnell

As Sudan's transitional civilian government continues its nascent rule, the country's former President Omar al-Bashir, who was removed from power after 30 years earlier this year following nationwide protests, was sentenced Saturday to two years detention in a state-run reform center on financial irregularities and corruption charges. Some of his supporters briefly disrupted the proceedings before being forced out of the courtroom.

The 75-year-old is reportedly protected somewhat by a law that prevents anyone over the age of 70 from serving jail time. He will reportedly serve his sentence after a verdict is reached in another case in which he is accused of ordering security forces to kill the protesters in the movement that led to his removal, and he was also questioned about the 1989 coup in which he was brought to power. One of his lawyers said they would appeal the verdict.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague is also pursuing al-Bashir for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide in Sudan's Darfur region, but none of the cases against him in Sudan are connected to those allegations. Read more at Al Jazeera and BBC. Tim O'Donnell

Come back with a better plan.

That's essentially what California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Friday told Pacific Gas & Electric after he rejected the utility company's plan to pull itself out of bankruptcy and pay victims of California's wildfires. Newsom said the proposal didn't meet safety requirements under state law and that PG&E fell "woefully short" of the safety benchmark. The company reportedly won't receive state assistance without implementing major changes to its plan. Without that money, it's future is murky.

"For too long, PG&E has been mismanaged, failed to make adequate investments in fire safety and fire prevention, and neglected critical infrastructure," Newsom said in a letter. "PG&E has simply violated the public trust."

PG&E, whose faulty equipment has received blame for sparking some the state's recent fires, is on the hook for $30 billion in financial liabilities from California. The company didn't actually need Newsom's approval, but asked him to weigh in anyway. Now it looks like the gamble backfired, and PG&E is pushing back against Newsom's comments, arguing its plan does conform to the safety requirements.

PG&E has until Tuesday to revise its plan. Read more at The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times. Tim O'Donnell

North Korea appears committed to that year-end deadline.

The country conducted its second successful test this week geared toward strengthening Pyongyang's nuclear deterrent at the Sohae satellite launch site Friday, state media said Saturday. Although North Korea's Academy of Defense Science didn't specify what was tested, the trial may have included technologies to improve intercontinental ballistic missiles, The Associated Press reports. North Korea considers ICBMs as strategic defensive weapons.

The test, in addition to one on Dec. 7, is widely seen as an attempt to pressure the Trump administration to make major concessions in nuclear negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang. North Korea set a year-end deadline for the United States to change course from its insistence on unilateral denuclearization before it sets out on a "new path."

Still some experts don't believe North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will reverse course too drastically and create tensions that existed in 2017 by running nuclear and ICBM tests. Instead, they predict he'll try to provoke Trump with military activities that don't pose a direct threat to Washington and by strengthening Pyongyang's alliance with Moscow and Beijing, AP reports. Read more at Reuters and The Associated Press. Tim O'Donnell