He also seems to have a problem understanding the difference between statutory rape and "rape" rape. He was convicted of the latter, something he sort-of acknowledges with that "violation with a foreign object" phrasing (no clue where he's getting that from), but then he tries to justify it using the age aspect of the case. If he was convicted under 289(a)(1), non-consent was involved. So an explanation for that kind of conviction is not "she was almost 18 and I was barely over 18".
As far as any deals that were arranged, he keeps alluding to political pressure of some kind. Kinda sounds like his dad is someone important, either politically or business-wise. Whether or not that's an explanation or even just an aspect of his current situation, who knows, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time that someone powerful was able to get the law to go easier than usual on their offspring.