By Johnny Vedmore via NEWSPASTE Original

Epstein and Maxwell’s primary goal was to infiltrate the halls of power. Their priority targets were those Democratic politicians who had the potential to make it all the way to the White House. To truly realize what Epstein and Maxwell had designed, as well as to understand influence operations more generally, you must first be able to tell the difference between blackmail and extortion.

N.B. This series has been adapted from the notes I made while helping with the research for “One Nation Under Blackmail Volume 2” by Whitney Webb

Before investigating the complex criminal enterprise created by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, it is vital for any commentator to understand the crimes which were being perpetuated by the couple. Many people refer to Epstein and Maxwell’s main sexual compromise operations as “sex blackmail” and you will often here the word “blackmail” being bandied about by the media discussing this enthralling and dark example of organized sexual exploitation. You may also be led to believe that, as this is one of the most well researched cases in modern history, every angle has been examined. However, the operation they ran and how it functioned is not fully understood by most, and the facts often takes a back seat to the many more salacious scandals involving politicians and celebrities.

The majority of those interested in the case assume that the famous faces who were targeted by Epstein’s operation were simply being blackmailed and they don’t truly understand the nuance involved in such an intelligence operation. However, Epstein and Maxwell were not just blackmailing people, in fact, they were mostly extorting their targets, the difference between blackmail and extortion must be understood if you truly wish to realize the seriousness of the crimes committed by these infamous international child traffickers.

A History of ‘Black Mal’

The term “blackmail” is believed to have been first used in Scotland during the 1500s and its supposed to have originated from “black mal”. This term was a way to describe a payment farmers and property owners made to prospective plunderers in return for not having their land damaged. Linguistically speaking, the modern way in which we use blackmail is actually a combination of two separate terms, with the modern usage becoming a combination of black money (“black”) and rent (derived from an old Scandinavian word “mal” meaning “agreement.”)ⁱ.

Unlike modern times, in early Scottish law, both sides of a blackmail scheme were considered criminals. The Laws and Customes of Scotland, published in the 17th century allows us insight behind the reasoning for also prosecuting the victims of a blackmail scheme, stating clearly,:

“The reason the givers are liable is because they maintain the thieves.”ⁱⁱ

For most people, the concept of blackmailing an individual or an organizational structure seems a relatively simple process to identify and understand. But, like any illicit activity, blackmail is much more complex and nuanced than most people can first comprehend.

Blackmail is regularly defined as an attempt to obtain money, goods, or favors from a person by threatening to publicize information that would incriminate, embarrass, or otherwise socially damage the victim. For blackmail to exist a few constituent parts are required. Firstly, there needs to be a perpetrator and, although it is often perceived as a “white collar crime”, in reality anyone can commit blackmail. Secondly, a blackmailer requires a victim and, even though anyone can become a victim of blackmail, the most likely targets of these operations are people with political power who have access to government or corporate secrets, although the most important factor for a perpetrator of blackmail is that their target has financial resources. Thirdly, once a perpetrator has identified their target, they then issue their demands followed by a threat to reveal the socially or economically damaging information if those requirements are not met. But there are many contradictions both legally and practically concerning the subject of blackmail.

Sidney Wallace DeLong, a Professor at Seattle University’s School of Law, has spent his academic career studying the legal aspects of blackmail, bribery and extortion, and has become one of the foremost experts on these subjects within law. In a 1993 paper by DeLong, entitled Blackmailers, Bribe Takers, and The Second Paradoxⁱⁱⁱ, which was published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, DeLong explains:

“The criminalization of blackmail has been considered paradoxical because it would make unlawful a threat to do something the threatener has a legal right to do. The blackmailer threatens to disclose an embarrassing or harmful secret of the victim unless she is paid for secrecy. She may lawfully disclose the victim’s secret? and may lawfully make an unconditional threat to disclose it. The threat becomes unlawful only when coupled with an offer to keep the secret in return for payment. Yet, most victims of blackmail would presumably prefer such an offer to an unconditional threat: the offer cannot make the victim worse off than the unconditional threat and it might make him better off by giving him an opportunity to buy the menace’s silence. Thus, it seems paradoxical to permit the unconditional threat and prohibit blackmail.”

Within a decade of DeLong’s aforementioned paper, his work had influenced other thinkers into calling for blackmail to be made legal. In another study of blackmail, which was published in the Business Ethics Quarterly in 2000, and which heavily quotes DeLong’s work, the authors of the paper entitled, The Second Paradox of Blackmail^iv, begins by explaining:

“One so-called paradox of blackmail concerns the fact that two legal whites together make a black. That is, it is illicit to threaten to reveal a person’s secret, and it is separately lawful to ask him for money; but when both are undertaken at once, together, this act is called blackmail and is prohibited. The second so-called paradox is that if the blackmailer initiates the act, this is seen by jurists as blackmail and illicit, while if the blackmailee (the person blackmailed) originates the contract, this is commonly interpreted as bribery and is not illicit.”

What is intriguing about this paper in particular – written whilst Epstein and Maxwell’s blackmail operation was arguably at its peak – is that its authors, Block, Kinsella and Hope, use libertarian theory to reject the claim that blackmail should be unlawful, going on to claim that:

“If this act (blackmail) were legalized, then both paradoxes would disappear.”

Although many of us may be found wincing at the idea of legalizing blackmail, DeLong’s work, and that of other libertarian-leaning scholars, continue to make a case for the legalization of blackmail to this very day. In a 2020 critique of the so-called ‘MeToo’ movement, DeLong released his paper, Paradigm Shift: #MeToo and the Paradox of Bribery Secrets, published in the University of the Pacific Law Review. In this journal piece, DeLong does make it clear that the legalization of blackmail should only be applied “so long as what is threatened is not itself tortious or criminal.”^v

Even within the more extreme beliefs about the consequences of blackmail, it seems to be an accepted fact that some forms of blackmail are considered to be wholly unacceptable regardless of ones ideological leanings. In the Epstein and Maxwell case, to successfully blackmail their chosen targets, the duo had to break a variety of laws in many countries.

To define Epstein and Maxwell’s industrial sex compromise operation, we must first define whether what they were doing would be wholly considered blackmail or was in fact the much more serious crime of extortion. Many people assume that blackmail and extortion are the same actions. Both extortion and blackmail are forms of coercion and both constitute the use of threats to manipulate the actions of the victim to the benefit of the blackmailer/extortioner and/or their co-conspirators. In fact, blackmail is a subset of extortion which uses specific threats to release damaging information pertaining to the victim. However, extortion, which like blackmail is a form of “coercion for benefit”,^vi is accompanied by threats that can include violence, kidnapping, destruction of property or reputation, or, most pertinently, the misuse of government office.

When we examine the Epstein/Maxwell sex compromise operation it is clear that we are not dealing with simple blackmailers but, instead, their operation was one which involved the extortion of their chosen marks. Even the most far-reaching libertarian-led, DeLong-inspired, legal eagles are not able to find a way to make Epstein and Maxwell’s operation legally acceptable. Yet, regardless of the words we use here, commonly, the majority of Epstein and Maxwell’s behavior will continue to be described as “blackmail” whether or not its the most accurate term to use.

The Sharp End of the Stick

While examining historic cases of proven criminal conspiracy, one soon finds that it’s very natural for there to be an ever present human desire for drama and controversy. Blackmail and extortion have always been activities which have caused a social stir among the spectating public who are often found baying for the blood of those in society who have been deemed as lacking ‘virtue’. The sensational world of the rich and famous has continuously drawn in very eager crowds and, seeing as the elite of our societies have the vast majority of the available capital, the crime of blackmail obviously disproportionately affects those who have amassed a reasonably large amount of wealth. This drama is not a new occurrence, in fact blackmailing schemes have been in operation throughout recorded history and, by their very nature, have often led to a public unveiling of the illicit information, whether or not the specific bribe requested had been successfully acquired.

Historically speaking, there have been many occasions where the most elite members of the ruling Establishment were the victims of blackmail and extortion. Some of these unlucky, yet also often very wealthy and powerful, targets have refused to play along with their blackmailers demands. The 1^st Duke of Wellington, Sir Arthur Wellesley, famously refused to give into the demands of a blackmail attempt by a 19^th century courtesan named Harriette Wilson. The enterprising Wilson was attempting to blackmail not only a powerful Duke, but one who had been the tactical genius behind some of Britain’s most successful Napoleonic-era military campaigns, as well as also being a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Harriette Wilson demanded payment from Wellesley and in return she would keep various sordid revelations about him out of her upcoming book.

The Duke famously rebuked her attempts at blackmail, reportedly shouting aloud:

“Publish and be damned!”^vii

But others who were in positions of power throughout key moments in history were not so confident as to leave the judgment of their character or behavior up to the general public. Alexander Hamilton, who now has a hit Broadway musical about his life, once paid $1,000 to the husband of a woman with whom he was having an affair.^viii The woman’s husband had threatened to reveal the relationship and, in turn, to ruin Hamilton’s public credibility. But even though Hamilton paid the initial blackmail demand, he later chose to ignore follow up requests for payments. Both the Duke of Wellington and Alexander Hamilton were victims of blackmail rather than extortion. The people involved were not forced to misuse public office by their blackmailers, they were not threatened with violence or kidnapping, they were not victims of extortion, at least as far as we know.

The use of a sexual lure to compromise the wealthy and powerful in society is also not a new occurrence. If prostitution can be considered as “the oldest profession”, it could easily be argued that, in turn, the art of sexual compromise is one of the oldest tools for infiltrating a target or organization. Many of us read books or watch movies, both fact and fiction, about the saucy and surreptitious romantic affairs of some of the most powerful people in recorded history. The concept of sexual compromise isn’t only a reoccurring theme in real life sagas, it is also a frivolously used trope in fiction writing. Whether it be Delilah undercutting Samson’s power once she lured him in with lust, or one of the many stories of the past of another industrious courtesan stealing the kings ear, sexual relationships have helped change the minds and actions of some of the most powerful men throughout recorded history.

Most rulers throughout history were extremely cognizant of the potential for their reign to be cut short due to a serious betrayal by alluring beauties. Like Ghislaine Maxwell herself, many of those women who had perpetrated sexual compromise operations in the past were all-too-often pushing their own familial agendas. King Henry VIII may have been afflicted with a constant wandering eye, but he wasn’t simply the randy fat king which he is often portrayed to be. Henry Tudor, along with every other ruler of the male-dominated past, knew that the charms of a woman could be used to curry their favor, sway their opinion, as well as having potentially lethal consequences.

Women have played an important role throughout history in regards to sexual compromise operations. They have been strategically used as tools by very powerful men and they have also often been the first to suffer the consequences. Our history is littered with the corpses of women who have been used by men as a weapon to penetrate the private bedchambers of the most powerful people on Earth. But the past is also littered with women who have used other women, often controlling them on behalf of wealthier and powerful men, women such as Ghislaine Maxwell.

As we are all aware, there has been a major cultural shift over the past century concerning how women are viewed within society. A hundred years of progress has seen women become increasingly empowered and, by the birth of Epstein and Maxwell’s sex compromise operations at the turn of the 90s, women in the western world had been given a false sense of security, safety and empowerment. Many young girls growing up in this environment were sure that they were the first generation of women to be truly free of some of the most horrific examples of sexism and exploitation seen throughout history. Women began to believe that the 1990s heralded the beginning of a new era of true equality between genders.

Yet, throughout that decade, Epstein and Maxwell were recruiting female children to go into high-schools, swimming pools, shopping malls, and even their friends homes, so as to lure in new kids who they could groom and abuse. This was not the new era which it had originally been framed as.

The Epstein/Maxwell Compromise Operation

Once Epstein and Maxwell’s team of elite groomers had gathered a large enough pool of young girls, they began to use that human collateral to infiltrate their targets lives. This small gang managed to groom hundreds of young girls and they seemingly acted without fear for over a decade. Epstein and Maxwell targeted powerful elites and those in the upper-echelons of government and business for a very good reason. They knew that whatever acts these powerful people committed were, in a sense, insured by their wealth or status. Because if any of these actions were uncovered by the authorities, press, or most other official body, a systematic cover-up would likely ensue. For instance, the investigation into the Franklin scandal during the 1980s stalled when allegations arose that children were being flown to Washington D.C. for Establishment sex parties. Such rumors of illicit debauchery at the center of power doesn’t only attract significant attention from the press. To micro-manage any scandal, specialists are brought in, some to manage negative PR, while others study potential legal avenues, but all of them close ranks, something which only benefits any offender.

Epstein and Maxwell knew that this safety net surrounded them while the were mingling with those in power, and most of the people they met would’ve known this too. Another theme strewn though out western history is the Establishment cover-up to protect the wealthy and powerful. Maxwell and Epstein knew that they were protected far beyond the average child trafficker.

It is also very unlikely that they were using a direct or simplistic form of blackmail or extortion when targeting a ‘mark’. Epstein and Maxwell may have been surfing in between the lines of culpability, partly protected from investigation or prosecution by their association with the elites, but they knew that there is always a comprehensible risk involved when partaking in such illicit or illegal activities. For Epstein and Maxwell, the most important dynamic was that people who became involved with their network had their public credibility inextricably linked to the wealthy child trafficking duo and whatever eventual fate awaited them.

Ghislaine Maxwell knew how the elite operated better than Epstein. From the moment she was born, her father had groomed her to exert power, influence and control in whichever environment she found herself. From the moment in 1991 when Robert Maxwell’s bloated corpse was pulled from the salty water, Ghislaine was let off the leash and strove to become a force of nature. She had spent her life surrounded by the wealthy movers and shakers of high society and she knew all their proclivities and what they desired. It was the same year as her fathers death when Maxwell supposedly met Epstein and when she was said to have been “desperately lonely”^ix although there are rumors they had met beforehand. Regardless, within no time whatsoever, this pair had setup and initiated their sophisticated grooming operation.

Throughout the 1990s, although Epstein made various donations to political candidates publicly, he also found ways to do business with them outside the realm of official politics. One of the earliest examples of Epstein’s focused political infiltration started within two years of Robert Maxwell’s death. In 1993 Epstein purchased the notorious 10,000-acre Zorro Ranch in New Mexico^x, but this acquisition wasn’t just a simple purchase from a random seller. The Zorro Ranch which Epstein purchased was owned by the former-Governor of New Mexico, Gov. Bruce King.^xi

In the decade following Epstein’s purchase of his vast New Mexico compound, he also donated $15,000 to the campaign for the New Mexico attorney general candidate Gary King^xii, the son of Gov. Bruce King.

The King family had been a powerful New Mexico agricultural and political dynasty and retained leasing rights over a total of 1,159-acres of the surrounding land. Once Epstein had begun to set up his Zorro Ranch project, he also began donating to the campaigns of Jim Baca in his race to become land commissioner in the region, as well as donating $2,000 to Greg Solano during his campaign to be elected Santa Fe County Sheriff.^xiii King and Solano denied ever meeting Jeffrey Epstein, with Gary King saying publicly: “I don’t think I’ve ever met him personally,” maybe suggesting that he had met Epstein professionally, going on to admit, “He knows other members of my family better.”^xiv

Epstein saw a very unique potential for an extremely fruitful opportunity in New Mexico and he obviously viewed the Zorro Ranch as a base for multifaceted operational potential. It was reported that Epstein started to expand his New Mexico estate in around 1994 with the construction of stables, detached garages, and other homes, alongside the building of his mansion on the estate which began in 1999. The mansion which Epstein had constructed on the Zorro Ranch estate was the largest in New Mexico at the time, it sat at around 26,700-square-feet (later reports would expand this figure to 33,339-square-feet with all structures eventually totaling around 57,420-square-feet^xv).

Located on a hilltop above Santa Fe County, the estate also hosted its own 4,400-feet long airstrip, helipad & airplane hanger. For a former-arms smuggler come child trafficker, Epstein was well aware that the Zorro Ranch is located in a prime position to potentially move weapons or humans across the nearby US/Mexico border.

Although Epstein was busy handing out small donations to people occupying various political offices in New Mexico, there was one man in particular who became his focus.

Wild Bill Richardson

William Blaine Richardson III, known as Bill Richardson, served as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives for New Mexico’s 3^rd district from between 3 January 1983 until 13 February 1997. After he left the House of Representatives to serve a short stint as the Ambassador to the United Nations, however, Richardson seems to have had a habit of courting constant controversy wherever he was placed. While at the United Nations, his only official task was to forge a ceasefire with an Afghani warlord and, although at first it was seen as successful, the ceasefire which didn’t hold.

It was during his year at the UN, when Richardson became embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal which threatened to bring down Bill Clinton’s administration.^xvi In 1998, it was revealed that while Richardson was at the United Nation, he had offered Miss Lewinsky a position as a senior-staff person. Bill Richardson was found to have lied at a senate confirmation hearing about the position offered to Miss Lewinsky. In an article on 21 August 1998, by Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid, the authors state:

“There were three main areas where Richardson deceived the panel. He had claimed that the position offered to Monica was an existing slot, though it later turned out not to have been so. There was no effort to fill the job that Monica was offered until three months later, after the scandal had broken publicly. Secondly, Richardson described the job as low-level. Monica was offered $30,000 a year. The senior-staff person, Paul Aronsohn, who later filled the slot that Richardson said was the same one offered Monica, was paid more than double what Monica was offered, plus he had high-level experience in areas such as nuclear disarmament and the UN dues controversy.”

Regardless of the latter controversy and the fact that Richardson failed to impress as the Ambassador to the UN, he was soon-after confirmed as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Energy. But Richardson soon found himself in trouble at the Department of Energy when a scientist based at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Wen Ho Lee, came under suspicion of providing the Chinese government with nuclear secrets. Eventually Lee was cleared of any crime and awarded a $1.6 million settlement for the damage done to his reputation.

Members of the Senate were quick to publicly criticize Bill Richardson’s handling of the espionage inquiry. Richardson defended his actions, stating that he had come to the conclusion that leaving Dr. Lee in his position ”was an unacceptable risk”.^xvii

After the scandal, Richardson tightened some security measures in an attempt to appease dissenters, but he was receiving criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, with a slew Republicans calling for his resignation. The ordeal eventually ended Richardson’s chances of becoming Al Gore’s running mate for the 2000 presidential election.^xviii

After the Clinton administration, Richardson served in various roles unrelated to politics before deciding to run for Governor of New Mexico. It is here in 2002 where Epstein donated $50,000 to Richardson’s gubernatorial campaign, later donating an extra $50,000 under the company name “The Zorro Trust”. In 2006, when Epstein was initially arrested and outed publicly as being a pedophile, Bill Richardson’s campaign officially donated the Epstein contributions to “charities around the state”.

So was Richardson being extorted, blackmailed, or simply being influenced by Jeffrey Epstein? It’s hard to know what other lures are offered behind the scenes during such intelligence-led compromise operations, but Richardson did not avoid accusations of sexual impropriety, after being named by Virginia Giuffre as one of her alleged abusers. If you boarded Epstein’s proverbial party boat, it was almost impossible to get off untarnished.

Zorro Trust

At the turn of the millennium, Epstein employed a couple to manage the Zorro Ranch and the Zorro Trust. Brice and Karen Gordon moved onto the ranch in the early 2000s according to property records.^xix In Epstein’s infamous ‘little black book’—rumored to actually be Ghislaine Maxwell’s address book^xx—Brice Gordon is listed as being the manager of the Zorro Trust, but this illusive couple have so far managed to avoid the public eye. The son of one Zorro Ranch employee, Ean Royal, who had lived and worked on the estate during this period is quoted as saying in 2020:

“I can’t believe Karen and Brice have hardly been spoken about, they’re ghosts.”

Royal went on to tell reporters:

“They’re smart people, they wouldn’t have been where they were with Epstein if they hadn’t have had some level of intelligence,” adding later, “Whenever he {Epstein} had visitors he was making sure the ranch was taken care of, and Brice and Karen were the two that he would talk to to makes sure that happened.”

In 2008, an entity called the “Zorro Trust” claimed a winning “Powerball” lottery ticket worth $85,000,000 which had been purchased at a Stripes convenience store in Altus, Oklahoma. This of course later led to widespread speculation that the pedophile billionaire had been a lottery winner. The win yielded Zorro Trust $29.3 million after taxes, however, that money wasn’t destined for Epstein’s bank account. In fact, the lucky ticket holder was actually a lady who worked in a supermarket located opposite the store where the ticket was bought. She decided to use the name “Zorro Trust” when claiming her prize, a decision which was unrelated to Epstein’s organization of the same name.^xxi

While investigating Epstein’s intentions for his Zorro Ranch estate, it’s clear that his New Mexico property was designed to be more than just a place to gather compromising information about those in power. Some of the rumors surrounding Epstein’s plans for the property would be normally considered akin to science fiction. As with many of the more fantastical stories surrounding the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein, there is little to no evidence to back up most of the claims. However, Epstein was growing a network of scientists throughout this period, supposedly with grander designs in mind. Official architect plans—uncovered by an Albuquerque radio station Rock of Talk’s owner Eddie Aragon—date back to 1998, five years after Jeffrey Epstein had first acquired the Zorro Ranch. The plans reportedly show a massive underground facility reaching around 8,000-square-feet which was designed to include a gym, massage rooms, Jacuzzi rooms, and a swimming pool.

During the period in which Epstein was establishing connections with local politicians and other elected officials in New Mexico, he was also beginning to support a broader array of mainly Democrat grandees who were likely to gain political power in the near future. Epstein could be perceived as hedging his bets politically speaking, in an effort to support the politicians most likely to be elected into positions of significant political influence within the American system.

Throughout the period we’re examining in this series, Epstein donated to various Senate campaigns including that of Joe Lieberman. In around 1986, a close friend of Les Wexner’s, insurance mogul Robert Meister, became the person who originally introduced Wexner to Epstein while Meister was handling insurance for Wexner’s ‘The Limited’. By September 1997, Meister had reportedly become extremely wary of Epstein’s behavior and warned Wexner about associating with the mysterious money man. Meister later said:

“My wife and I told him {Wexner} and Abigail hundreds of times to stay away from Epstein.”

Speaking to Vanity Fair in 2021, Meister said that he and his wife attended Wexner’s 60^th birthday dinner at their Ohio estate and, in front of former-senator Joe Lieberman and real estate developer Marshall Rose, Meister begged Les Wexner to severe his ties with Epstein. “Les wouldn’t listen,” explained Meister, telling Vanity Fair that it was the last occasion where he visited Wexner’s home.^xxii

It wasn’t only Les and Abigail Wexner who ignored the warnings of people such as Meister, many people had understood Epstein to be a dangerous and unpredictable entity. US senators such as then-Democrat Joe Lieberman, were exactly the potential political leaders who were expected to increase their influence over the coming era. Where the scandal-hit Bill Richardson failed to get on the Gore presidential campaign ticket, Lieberman himself went on to run alongside Al Gore, in an attempt to become the Vice President of the United States. Epstein was focused on financially infiltrating members of the Democratic Party who were likely to sit in the office of President of the United States of America in the near future.

Possibly the most powerful political dynasty in modern US history were of great importance to Epstein’s political influence activities. The Clinton’s weren’t only receiving financial donations from Epstein publicly, Bill Clinton in particular eventually teamed up with Epstein’s operation. If one considers Bill Clinton to have been simply an unwitting victim of Epstein’s operation, one would have to ignore a lot of clear evidence of his extremely close relationship with the perverse billionaire, as well as his outright complicity.

In the next two parts of the Epstein 101 series, we will learn more about the relationship between former-President Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein. But we’ll also look at Epstein’s targeting of political heavyweights who he believed had the potential to make it all the way to the White House. One of those politicians who had links with Epstein is a current contender to become President of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., we’ll look at that relationship, too.

iElizabeth Nix, 22 August 2018: Where did the word “blackmail” come from? History.Com

iiMatthew Haag, 8 February 2019: Jeff Bezos Said He Was a Victim of Extortion and Blackmail. What’s the Difference? New York Times

iiiSidnet DeLong, May 1993: Blackmailers, Bribe Takers, and the Second Paradox. University of Pennsylvania Law Review

ivStephen Kinsella, 2000: The Second Paradox of Blackmail. Business Ethics Quarterly.

vSidney W. DeLong, 2020: Paradigm Shift: #MeToo and the Paradox of Bribery Secrets, 52 University of the Pacific Law Review (2020).

viGan Integrity, 2021: Compliance Glossary, Blackmail, Gan Integrity.

viiJ. R. Thorpe, 12 January 2017: The Most Dramatic Political Blackmail Scandals In… Bustle.com

viiiSarah Pruitt, 20 April 2018: The Scandal That Ruined Alexander Hamilton’s Chances of Becoming President. History.com

ixWendy Leigh, 18 May 2007: Ghislaine Maxwell is ‘just like her Daddy’. MailOnline.

xMary K. Jacob, 7 December 2021: No one wants to buy Jeffrey Epstein’s New Mexico sex ranch on sale for $27.5M. New York Post.

xiMary K. Jacob and Alex Mead, 13 December 2021: Inside the abandoned sex dens Jeffrey Epstein shared with Ghislaine Maxwell. New York Post.

xiiMichael Daly, 6 August 2019: Epstein Seen With Young Girls as He Shopped for ‘Baby Ranch’ in New Mexico. Daily Beast.

xiiiGreg Solano, 15 August 2006: Billionaire Donor In Palm Beach Sex Scandal. Sheriff Greg Solano Blog.

xivKate Briquelet, 16 April 2019: REVEALED: We Found Billionaire Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Secret Charity. Daily Beast.

xvTheCount.com, 17 August 2019: Check Out Epstein 57,420 SQ FT Mansion 8,000 Acre Sante Fe NM Doomsday Sex Farm ‘Zorro Ranch’. TheCount.com.

xviReed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid, 21 August 1998: Bill Richardson Caught In Clinton Undertow. AIM.org.

xviiMatthew Purdy, 4 February 2001: The Making of a Suspect: The Case of Wen Ho Lee. New York Times.

xviiiDavid Plotz, 23 June 2000: Energy Secretary Bill Richardson: He schmoozes. He loses. Slate.com.

xixKaty Forrester, 7 July 2020: MISSING LINKS Epstein’s Zorro Ranch manager ‘vanished’ after his death & Ghislaine Maxwell arrest has ‘left other staff paranoid’. TheSun

xxMadeline Carlisle, 29 November 2021: What To Know About the Contacts Book That Could Be Crucial to Ghislaine Maxwell’s Trial. Time.com.

xxiPatrick, 14 August 2019: No, Jeffrey Epstein did not win $25-million from an Oklahoma lottery ticket… or did he?!. TheLostOgle.com.

xxiiGabriel Sherman, 8 June 2021: The Mogul and the Monster: Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Decades-Long Relationship With His Biggest Client. Vanity Fair.