point of order- quote tags include italic therefore your attempt at identifying a single quote w/ italic doesn’ work.
Let me rephrase.
There has been no judicial determination that a crime was committed.
However, the facts alleged are sufficient, if believed, to support a verdict of guilty.
Come now Counselor- without even hearing the Defence? I agree that the facts- as given to the Media- are enough for a Indictment, sure.
That’s a serious aggrivating factor – presumably, someone working in the Homeland Security press office has access to sensitive materials, and should not put himself in a position that exposes him to blackmail.
Sure, without hearing the defense.
The point of a trial is for the fact-finder to hear the facts from both sides, weigh their credibility, and decide what events actually happened.
Here’s the distinction: if the government alleged the same set of facts as they have now, but charged with with statutory rape, then the facts alleged would be insufficient to sustain verdict of guilty. In other words, even if the jury completely believed the government’s case, and completely disbelieved the defense case, they still could not find him guilty of rape… because there was no allegation of all the elements of the crime of rape.
Here, there are enough facts alleged to constitute all the elements of the crimes of which he’s accused. If believed, they would support a guilty verdict. His defense could be, “It wasn’t me,” or “I wasn’t being serious; I knew it was an adult on the other end.” Or something else entirely. If the jury believed him, they would aquit. If they did not, they’d convict.
If it’s easier to understand, pretend you’re an appellate court, considering the conviction on appeal, and the accused has appealed based on insufficiency of the evidence. If the jury in the trial court had heard the government’s evidence, and any defense he put on, and found him guilty, could he successfully appeal based on sufficiency of the evidence?
No.
For most men, this would be no problem.
You know, I just realised why I probably should have chosen a different colloquialism… 
IMO, it’s not common sense at all, it’s rather that you’re accustomed to this concept. I’m not, laws about entrapment being, as far as I can tell, much stricter here. And as a result the concep of being sentenced for trying to have an imaginary date with an imaginary child, or buying imaginary drug from an imaginary dealer appears shocking to me.
It’s not the same at all as trying unsuccessfully to kill an actual, not imaginary, person. Maybe the guy trying to have sex with an imaginary girl has the same guilty mind as the guy trying to have sex with a real girl, but I can’t accept the ida of punishing an imaginary crime. And I dislike strongly the concept of entrapment by the police, which means that the police try to make you commit a crime that you otherwise wouldn’t have commited (I believe, though I could be mistaken, that it’s the basis for french laws about entrapment), IOW try to turn an honest (though maybe not very moral) citizen into a criminal. That’s really not what I would expect from the police. They should deter and pursue criminals, not create them.
So, once again, no. It’s not “common sense” at all.
Don’t worry, we’ll make up some new ones! 
No offence, but I suspect you’re as ignorant about French law as some of these other posters are about American law. I mean, there is such a thing as an undercover police officer in France, right? That’s absolutely no different than what we’re talking about here. A cop poses as a thug and infiltrates a crew planning to rob a bank. He doesn’t wait until they actually rob the bank before he arrests them, he does it beforehand, as soon as he’s got enough evidence, to prevent any threat to innocent people. Exactly the same with this guy: he was planning to have sex with an underage girl: a cop posed as an underage girl until he had enough evidence on the guy, then he arrests him. Knowing that this guy is out there trolling for little girls, and waiting until he hooks one before moving in, is simply idiotic.
As I understand things, American entrapment laws are pretty much the same, at least in principle. I don’t see any reason to assume that the accused was entraped. Do you?
Sorry, can’t agree. If the French legal system does not include this or a similar principle, it’s horribly, horribly flawed. But, I’m virtually certain that it does: I can’t imagine a legal system that could function reliably without it.