There was sexual contact with minors!

[cynatnite]

It may not have been physical, but through internet he was in sexual contact. Is there a difference?

[Horse with no Name]

1. He is using a technicality

In DC, age of consent is 16. Which "technically" he hasn't.
However, the clincher is that the law doesn't pertain to internet sex predators. That is where he messed up.

[damntexdem]

3. Yeah, the internet law is federal --

compliments of: Foley.

[MichiganVote]

2. Ethically? IMO, no. Legally? Don't know, depends on the state

[Ian David]

7. You have to be 18 to receive pornographic material

Technically, he knowingly transmitted pornographic material to minors.

Ironically, he probably could have legally done things with sixteen year-olds that he wasn't legally allowed to describe to them on-line.

[LeftCoast]

4. Plus, the IM's seem to suggest that he met up with at least one page

in San Diego. If I recall correctly, he also talked about getting together with another page AT HIS HOME to drink. Is he really sure he wants to categorically deny this?

[soothsayer]

5. Sounds risky to me, too!

[slaveplanet]

6. The SWAT teams of dateline

NBC say yes.

There need not be physical contact