They were suspicious because he was a known pedophile. That doesn't mean that anyone under his employ was being exploited.
> this is a weird horse to hitch your wagon to.
I'm not hitching my wagon to anything. This is basically arguing that as long as someone was bad enough, you can just make up or assume anything also bad about them, including the extent of their crimes. Did you know Hitler was a pedophile and necrophiliac? Now, don't you go trying to defend Hitler by saying there's no evidence of this!
They were suspicious because he was a known pedophile who prostituted young girls from Eastern Europe, who showed up with two young-looking girls from Eastern Europe. That’s not evidence, but it’s enough to arouse suspicion, which is the point.
The Hitler thing is a straw man; Hitler was not known for pedophilia or necrophilia. Epstein was already known for soliciting prostitution from underage girls who matched the profile of the ones he brought to the MIT Media Lab offices.
> this is a weird horse to hitch your wagon to.
I'm not hitching my wagon to anything. This is basically arguing that as long as someone was bad enough, you can just make up or assume anything also bad about them, including the extent of their crimes. Did you know Hitler was a pedophile and necrophiliac? Now, don't you go trying to defend Hitler by saying there's no evidence of this!