Maybe he meant that he (Webb) didn't tell his aide that.
IMO it's plausible that there were a few bags in the back seat, the aide just scooped them up to bring them to office.
Who knows.
I was not suggesting that Webb did or did not attempt to explain what his aide knew. I was only suggesting that Webb could not be in a position to make any statement that was truly helpful to his aide.
Some criminal statutes include the words "intentionally" or "knowingly" to describe the criminal behavior. Others simply describe criminal behavior without regard to intention. Common law might have something to say about whether intentions are required to establish that a crime has been committed.
Regardless of whether DC had to prove that the aide "intentionally" did something, Webb was probably not able to state with evidential certainty that the aide did not know the gun was present.
The prosecution's decision to drop the case may have represented their assessment that they could not establish the aide's intention, given the fact that the gun was Webb's and the bag which contained it was Webb's. A jury would be hard-pressed to ignore the reasonable doubt that the aide was simply moving a bag not knowing the contents of the bag.