Child pornography is obscene. This was an act between consisting adults. This was not child pornography. Perhaps the FBI should spend their time uncovering the many many many crimes of the Clintons and our Justice Department.
“Perhaps ... “ you should read the article
Actually, it was/is child pornography by definition. She was 17 and under the age of majority. While she may have consented, by statute she was unable to give consent.
The old line 15 will get you 20 is still operative. And when I was 16, I would never consider fornicating with a girl who was 15. Same applies here. He should have never considered taking a naked picture of his under the age of majority girlfriend even if she let him.
“This was an act between consisting adults. “
Where did it say she gave consent to put her sexually explicit photos in a convicted pedophiles child porn collection?