The FSF is an advocacy org and you can’t advocate well for a moral position (free software) if your main advocate is ensnared in scandal over morally questionable behavior, regardless of the truth.
The FSF first now has to advocate for the morality of RMS to clear his name enough that he can advocate for the morality something else and have enough people listen. Frankly, his track record beyond the Epstein mess was already dubious, so it’s a losing battle.
What does it mean to be "questionable"? controversial? wrong? That the earth is round is questionable (to some smaller subset of people) - that doesn't change the fact that the RMS was misrepresented (without scare-quotes) - the truth of his actual comments wrt Minsky do 100% exonerate him - that a subset of people don't agree is irrelevant.
He's viewed so negatively that this Epstein thing (which he is not exonerated entirely imo) is not the only reason to distance from him.
So orgs should pander to misinformation?