Not quite. The big news here is that Ito's denials were apparently false -- that Ito was fully aware of what kind of stigma would be associated with Epstein's money, and why, and dealt with it by concealing the source and taking the money. As documented by the email trails that someone gave the reporter.

> cat's out of the bag

Perhaps I am too naive but what is wrong with accepting a donation from a person you didn't know was a criminal?

Nothing. But that is certainly, provably not the situation here.

It sounds like you haven't read the article, which is about covering up donations from someone you knew was a disqualified donor because he was a pedophile, because your own staff kept telling you he was and that you should stop talking to him.

And also apparently personally profited from it.

He didn't do a basic Google search to find all the articles about his conviction for child molestation and solicitation?