It will look bad on people who try to look ethical, but it will have no effect on those who don't. So the Clinton's would take a hit if Bill was on there, but Trump wouldn't be affected.

The right wing easily draws in one-issue voters since their primary issues are usually about taking away something from someone else, and so they don't require many resources and generally are accomplished more easily using unethical means than ethical ones. "It's just business," and all that.

Leftists tend to be more about building something rather than tearing it down. That's both more work and requires a lot of shared resources. So ethical practices are required to keep those resources from getting misused.

In reality? Nothing, if there’s no further evidence of the individual’s participation in Epstein’s activities. Because of the shitload of people who encountered Epstein in various social settings without participating in his illegal activities (not saying they didn’t have knowledge of his activities which I assume was an open secret among the wealthy) it will be likely be impossible to pin individuals to crimes sufficient to result in a conviction in court. Plus, being rich and powerful is a disincentive for prosecutors to pursue crimes because of all the usual reasons.

So yeah. Nothing will happen to these people.

We don't actually know.

I can't rule out "nothing" completely, with the knowledge I have. It's absolutely something we should see, though. It will sketch out the whole picture in a way that allows people to exonerate themselves or be further implicated. If it's specific enough for people to have alibis, then that's interesting, and if it's full of plausible allegations, then they could become more damning. Consider that the details of what people are "accused" is likely to vary - are they accused of being on a plane with other witnesses? Who is accused of having extensive opportunities to have committed abuses during their stay on the island? What was the pretense for their involvement with Epstein and Maxwell? It puts people in a position to explain what they did or did not know about Jeffrey Epstein at the time, and for those claims to be cross-checked, where possible. Close contacts of the accused may be prompted to add additional information from their recollections or records, if they learn that they had been lied to. Another possibility is that the allegations are frustratingly vague and don't actually create a clear picture of any criminal behavior.

That they were requested to testify or give testimony about their experiences related to Gislanes activity on Epsteins island.

They're asked to testify because of other people's testimony, flight logs, pictures, etc. that place them on the island at some point.

What they were doing there is debatable, but there are implications; at best they were hanging with a shady dude.