"but represents some kind of hidden power struggle."

No, it's likely not.

The thing that is getting him fired is the relations with his staff, not the spy stuff, for which there aren't really specific allegations.

The spy stuff brought the scrutiny, the scandal is different than the story.

There is likely no 'spy' but just a woman trying to hustle GPUs, and so these things don't come with 'hard evidence'. So she had 'discussions' with the government? Ok, what was said? Was it even relevant? 'Enough to start a background investigation' is not damning either.

People here have a bad intuition for media whims and narratives. A story can sit in the wide open until there's enough momentum behind it. That draw scrutiny, and if there are more 'juicy things' (infidelity), that gives the story legs.

There are hugely relevant material things going on about 'Epstein' but we only hear about it when the narrative winds blow around it and break the issue through into a contemporary wave.

This is 'media focus lens' as much as anything.