It would be, if he ever said that, but it's a lie.
What he said was "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."
He has also stated that Epstein should be considered a serial rapist.
That sounds like Boris Johnson's defense (about the partygate) "yes, the investigation shown that people were hugging and partying right in front of my eyes, but you have no proof that my brain recorded these information, so you have no proof I've lied when I've said I did not notice".
Presenting herself as entirely willing does not mean that suddenly the person who is "consuming" is not participating to a sexual assault when this person is conveniently closing a blind eye on either or not she has been coerced: Epstein already had a bad reputation and was a registered sex offended at the time, including for coercing minor to have sex. It is just bs to play coy and say "weeeell, maybe he did not know", and just show the person saying that is going out of their way in semantic to reshape the discourse into victim blaming.
Are you sure about that? Given the concerted smear campaign against him?