2 among other things, that he thought she was “kinda sorta gorgeous.” ( PSR ¶ 6). Their communications continued the next morning on Facebook messenger, then moved to Kik, and at some later point, Confide and Snapchat. The latter three all are messaging and photo-sharing applications that delete messages and images once viewed. (PSR ¶¶ 8-11). As January turned to February, their intermittent exchanges grew more lascivious. This was despite the fact that there could be no reasonable doub t in Weiner’s mind that he was chatting with a minor – in addition to having revealed that she was a high school student, (PSR ¶ 6), the Minor Victim told Weiner that she was getting her learner’s permit, (PSR ¶ 9). She explained in Facebook chats that she has “parents that wouldn’t approve of some of the things” she does, and that she li kes “older guys,” “[b]ut that’s illegal.” The defendant correctly observed, “You are young,” in one Kik message. Against that backdrop, between February 17 and 23, 2016, Weiner and the Minor Victim participated in three video chat sessions on Skype.

1

(PSR ¶ 12). It was then that the Minor Victim made clear that she was not just a minor – she was, in fact, onl y 15 years old. (PSR ¶ 12). That did not stop Weiner. During the latter two Skype sessions, on February 18 and 23, 2016, and in a Snapchat communication on March 9, 2016, the defendant used graphic and obscene language to ask the Minor Victim to display her naked body and touch herself, which she did. (PSR ¶¶ 10-12). He also sent an obscene mess age to the Minor Victim on Confide, describing

1

There is no dispute that t he Minor Victim repeatedly suggested that she an d the defendant participate in video chats on Skype. (Def. Mem. at 17). Those suggestions were not, however, one-sided. For example, Twitter records reveal that during their f irst exchanges the night of January 23, 2016, at some point after the Minor Victim had suggested that they Skype, the defendant said “Leave the complex stuff f or Skype.” That night as well, after a suggestive exchange, the defendant said “Maybe Skype someday.” Thus, although it was the Minor Victim who initially sought out Weiner, as the Gove rnment readily concedes, Weiner immediately responded to the Minor Victim’s overture and willingly participated in the offense conduct thereafter.