No way for entrapment IMHO. Plus who showed up to get the booty... so to speak. I think that substantiates to a significant level who may have been on the other end of the line
First, entrapment requires that the defendant admit the crime ("I did it, but I was tricked into doing it by the police!"). This is not the sort of crime that a person wants to confess, in order to avoid a guilty verdict. Second, entrapment only occurs where a person does a criminal act under the persistent encouragement of law enforcement. In other words, the person must commit a crime that, but for law enforcement's involvement, the person would never have committed. The facts show that this person apparently voluntarily engaged in the conversation with someone whom he believed to be only 14 years old. So, even if the facts were that the person wasn't 14, nevertheless the defendant had the mental intent to commit the act with a 14 year old. So, if it's illegal to do what he did with someone who's 14, and he did something, believing that he was doing it with a 14 year old, then he committed the crime. There was no entrapment and no coercion by law enforcement. It was all apparently quite voluntary.
No, the point is, that party of FAMILY VALUES, the Reprobatelican party is so hypocritical it's almost funny. The party of Rove, Delay, and all those phony lying 'evangelicals' seems to be trying to set some kind of record for criminal behavior in office. Just hubris, I guess. bt