Well, the best the 'Crats could do was get him to admit that someone under his supervision did some things that were not good. Does that make me happy? Not really. If it happened under his supervision, he was responsible for the outcome. I suppose the issue is whether, relative to other offenses by nominees, his rise to the level of disqualifying.
We all might find out today, since the committee is scheduled to vote on whether to advance the nomination to the Senate or effectively kill it.
If I had to guess, I'd say that he'll go forward. The 'Crats have already killed one Labor nominee (Puzner) for what seemed to me to be strange, capricious reasons that were mostly bogus (they succeeded in proving no misdeeds, but only in harassing him horribly. Puzner claimed (without providing many specifics because law enforcement is still investigating) that he withdrew because of threats and dirty dealings by 'Crat operatives targeting his family. So if the 'Crats stop another, it starts to become more and more difficult as time goes on (one of the Unwritten Laws of the Cabinet Appointment Process).
To the central point regarding Epstein, the allegations of violations of law were not pressed by the 'Crats in the committee hearing, so I'm inclined to think that there was little or nothing to them. If there were, they would have pounded him on it.
It's possible that being a billionaire, Epstein had the brains to cover his tracks and of course had the best legal representation that money could buy. It's also possible that the girls involved chose not to participate in the process at their own request, which hardly constitutes "failure to consult" with them. Maybe they were contacted and never responded.
If the presence of smoke indicates fire, then does a lack of smoke indicate a lack of fire?
