No, what I said was
This is simply saying a lot of people say they wouldn't say if under oath. Nowhere did I even hint you could say anything to anyone at anytime without fear of prosecution if you're not under oath.
The fundamental problem is you have him on trial for something he said while not under oath. Is that enough for a trial by jury? Ye or no? If you're going to add a caveat of something else, then what he said isn't why he's on trial. You're moving the goalposts.
No it's not. It's relevant since you have put Hannity on trial by jury for something he said while not even under oath, and have the jury not believing him when he said he was lying.
dude. How did you get from where we are now to Hannity being on trial by jury? What else is going to get him there? You cannot magically bridge that gap with "and then".
I didn't say he cannot be charged. You're another here who likes to put words in people's mouths instead of arguing against what I said. Time and again you do this and time and again I have to point you back to the facts.

"there doesn't need to be something else" followed by "if those statements revealed a crime". What crime? The crime would be the "something else", don't you think?
A conviction? How did you get past the AG to even have a trial by jury because someone said they were told something?
You're creating a hypothetical that isn't reality at all. In an alternate universe if a totally different set of cir stances existed and so forth.
I'm talking about this universe, this cir stance. How could saying he was told something reveal a crime, when the crime would be him being told something... when he's not under oath? He cannot lie without going to jail?
You said the same thing over and over.
I could say that Cohen told me something multiple times. Does that mean I could go to jail?