Congress Investigates Epstein’s 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement

California Rep. Robert Garcia, Democratic leader on the House Oversight Committee, warned that the latest release of Jeffrey Epstein documents contains almost no new information. Of more than 33,000 pages turned over by the Justice Department, Garcia noted that only about 3 percent were previously undisclosed, primarily flight logs and re-entry forms. He cautioned that the overwhelming majority had already been public, raising fears that key details about Epstein’s network and crimes remain concealed, leaving Congress and the public far from a full accounting. Cite : https://www.rawstory.com/truth-being-withheld-trump-epstein/

🔑 Key Clauses from the NPA (2008)

Immunity to Co-Conspirators “…the United States agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against Jeffrey Epstein or against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to the four individuals identified in the agreement…”
— Non-Prosecution Agreement, Sept. 24, 2007 (executed 2008) ⚠️ This is what makes the deal so extraordinary: it didn’t just shield Epstein, it shielded his network, even unnamed individuals, from prosecution.

Secrecy / No Victim Notification “This Agreement shall be made known to the Court, but shall not be made part of the public record…” Victims were not informed of this deal before it was signed, which Judge Kenneth Marra later ruled violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA).

Resulting Plea Epstein would plead guilty to two Florida state charges of solicitation (one involving a minor), serve 13 months in county jail, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution. Importantly: no federal charges were brought despite a detailed FBI investigation and evidence of trafficking multiple minors.

⚖️ Judicial & DOJ Findings

2019 (Judge Marra ruling):
The court found Acosta’s office broke the law by failing to notify victims.
2020 (DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility):
Concluded Acosta showed “poor judgment” but did not commit misconduct.

✅ Why this matters for your work:

This is the evidence itself, not media spin.
It explains how Epstein’s broader network (potentially including high-profile figures) was insulated in 2008.
It directly connects to Ghislaine Maxwell’s current Supreme Court appeal, since her lawyers argue this clause gave her immunity.

The Four Named Co-Conspirators

According to the terms of the 2008 NPA, immunity from federal prosecution was granted not only to Jeffrey Epstein, but also to four specifically named co‑conspirators, as well as any unnamed “potential co-conspirators.” These four individuals were:

Sarah Kellen
Adriana Ross
Lesley Groff
Nadia Marcinkova (sometimes referred to as Nadia Marcinkova or Marcinko)
law.utah.edu+15twitter.com+15facebook.com+15

Summary Table

Name	Role / Context
Sarah Kellen	Listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the NPA—implicated in recruiting.
Adriana Ross	Named in the NPA and shielded by the immunity clause.
Lesley Groff	Similarly granted immunity; represented as facilitating operations.
Nadia Marcinkova	Long-time associate of Epstein, pilot of his jet—also granted immunity.

👩 Sarah Kellen (a.k.a. Sarah Kensington)

Epstein’s long-time assistant and “scheduler.”
Accused of arranging sexual encounters with underage girls and enforcing Epstein’s rules.
Multiple survivors named her as a recruiter and enforcer.
Was granted immunity in the 2008 deal.
Still lives in the U.S. and has denied wrongdoing.

👩 Adriana Ross

Former model from Poland.
Worked as one of Epstein’s assistants.
Survivors testified that she helped strip Epstein’s homes of computers and CDs before raids.
Named in the NPA, given immunity.

👩 Lesley Groff

Long-time executive assistant to Epstein, based mostly in New York.
Handled his calendar, communications, and some travel logistics.
Seen as one of Epstein’s closest professional aides.
She too was explicitly immunized in the deal.

👩 Nadia Marcinkova (later changed spelling to Marcinko)

Originally from Slovakia.
Brought to the U.S. by Epstein as a teenager; described in some accounts as both a victim and later a participant.
Trained as a pilot and flew Epstein’s private jets.
Was granted immunity in the NPA despite survivor allegations she participated in abuse.

⚠️ Why only women?

Acosta’s agreement named these four women because they were Epstein’s immediate staff and facilitators — people survivors said scheduled, recruited, or enabled the encounters.

The controversy is that the immunity clause went further than these four: it also covered “any potential co-conspirators, known or unknown.” That blanket shield could have protected powerful men in Epstein’s orbit — which is why this deal is considered extraordinary and why it’s back under congressional scrutiny now.

✈️ Mentions in the Logs

Sarah Kellen – appears several times as “Sara” / “Sarah K” / “Kellen” in passenger lists.
→ She often traveled with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, consistent with survivor testimony that she acted as Epstein’s assistant/scheduler.
Adriana Ross – appears as “Adriana” in flight manifests.
→ She is logged on domestic U.S. flights in the 2000s.
Lesley Groff – listed as “Lesley” / “Groff” in several flight pages.
→ She shows up as staff traveling between New York, Florida, and the islands.
Nadia Marcinkova (Marcinko) – appears multiple times as “Nadia” / “Marcinko”.
→ She is noted on international trips, including flights to Europe.

⚖️ What This Means

These are the same four women granted immunity in Acosta’s 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Their names do appear in your uploaded logs — they weren’t just behind the scenes, they flew repeatedly on Epstein’s planes alongside him, Maxwell, and high-profile guests.
That explains why Acosta included them: they were the core inner staff, seen by survivors and documented in travel records.

✅ Evidence (documented and verifiable):

2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA): This is a real federal court filing signed off by Alexander Acosta when he was U.S. Attorney in Florida. It’s public record.
Immunity clause: The NPA text explicitly granted immunity not only to Epstein but also to “any potential co-conspirators” — known or unknown. That’s documented in the court record and was confirmed by the DOJ’s 2019 review.
Victims not notified: Federal Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in 2019 that the government violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by failing to inform Epstein’s victims before the deal was finalized. That’s a matter of judicial record.
Acosta’s involvement: He publicly admitted, during his 2019 resignation from Trump’s cabinet, that he approved the deal and argued it was “the best they could do at the time.”

⚠️ Context (interpretations or consequences):

That the deal shielded Epstein’s network from investigation is a widely held concern, but not formally adjudicated.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal team is currently using the 2008 NPA as the foundation of her Supreme Court appeal — but the Court hasn’t ruled yet.
Connections to names like Blair, Clinton, or Dunkley depend on correlating separate sources (flight logs, meeting records, UK child protection timelines, etc.), not the NPA itself.

So — the MSN/Raw Story article ‘Lawmakers tipped off to ‘unanswered questions’ for Trump appointee who let Epstein walk’ is accurately summarizing evidenced facts (the unusual plea structure, immunity clause, victims excluded) and tying them to unanswered questions lawmakers may raise. if we extract the NPA text and match it against the flight logs

👉 What this means in context with Acosta:

The evidence of travel is there for Clinton.
There’s no direct flight evidence for Blair or Dunkley.
Acosta’s connection is legal, not logistical: his 2008 non-prosecution agreement effectively protected Epstein (and co-conspirators) while these flights and associations continued.

Victim Notification Failure:

In 2019, Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that Acosta’s office violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by failing to notify victims of the plea deal.
That ruling is part of federal case law and is not disputed.

Congressional Relevance Now (2025):

Acosta has reportedly agreed to testify before Congress.
Lawmakers want answers on three specific points:
- Why the feds handed Epstein off to a state plea (almost unheard of).
- Why the immunity clause was so broad.
- Why victims were not notified as required by law.

2008 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)

I located the official 2008 NPA between federal prosecutors (the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Southern District of Florida) and Jeffrey Epstein on DocumentCloud — this is the primary source document and includes full text of the agreement. Newsweek+15DocumentCloud+15ABC+15

For clarity, a publicly accessible PDF and preview of the NPA (including any addenda) is available via Wikimedia Commons, dated around September–October 2007, which aligns with the formal creation and signing of the NPA. Wikimedia Commons

Key Provisions & Legal Findings from the NPA

While the full text is lengthy, here are the critical excerpts and legal implications, drawn from both the NPA itself and independent analyses:

Broad Immunity Clauses
- Epstein was granted immunity from all federal criminal charges, including those involving not only himself but also four named co-conspirators and any future “potential co‑conspirators”, even if unnamed. This is a direct and unusual expansion of immunity. ABC+3Department of Justice+3GovInfo+3 Department of Justice+6Reason.com+6ABC News+6 Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4
Violation of Victims’ Rights
- The NPA was kept secret from Epstein’s victims, which later led to a federal judge ruling the agreement violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), mandating victim notification and participation. The Times of India+11Wikipedia+11Wikipedia+11
DOJ Investigation — Poor Judgment, Not Misconduct
- The Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility found that Acosta exercised poor judgment in approving the NPA and failing to notify victims — though it did not find evidence of professional misconduct or corrupt influence. AP News opb+8ABC News+8AP News+8
Impact on the FBI Investigation
- The NPA effectively halted an ongoing FBI investigation into Epstein, preventing deeper inquiry into additional victims or associates. Congress.gov+7ABC News+7The Times of India+7 embed.documentcloud.org+12Wikipedia+12Wikipedia+12

Summary Table

Item	Details
Primary Document	2008 NPA between U.S. Attorney’s Office (Southern Florida) and Epstein
Key Clause	Immunity granted to Epstein + four named and future unnamed co-conspirators
Legal Violation	Breached the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (failure to notify victims)
DOJ Findings	Actions showed poor judgment, but no misconduct
Investigative Impact	Stopped a broader FBI probe into Epstein’s network

📌 Why this matters:

It places Clinton in Epstein’s inner social circle, not just as a passenger on flights.
The wording (“childlike curiosity,” “adventures,” “solace of friends”) echoes the same period (2001–2003) when Clinton was flying with Epstein — aligning exactly with the 26 trips confirmed in the flight logs.
The 2003 birthday note sits just five years before Acosta’s 2008 sweetheart deal, which insulated Epstein and his network.

⚖️ Evidence layering now looks like this:

Flight logs (2001–2003): Clinton flew at least 26 times with Epstein, sometimes with Kellen, Groff, or Marcinkova (all later immunized in Acosta’s deal).
2003 Clinton note: Shows a personal and admiring relationship with Epstein, confirming closeness beyond “foundation trips.”
2008 Acosta deal: Halted federal prosecutions, gave immunity to Epstein’s co-conspirators, and indirectly protected high-profile associates.

📑 FBI Investigations & Reports

2006–2008 Investigation (Palm Beach + Federal probe)
- The FBI gathered testimony from more than 30 underage victims and hundreds of pages of evidence showing a trafficking network.
- Their case file (“Operation Leap Year”) was handed to Acosta’s U.S. Attorney’s Office.
- Instead of pursuing federal charges, Acosta cut the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity.
- FBI agents were deeply frustrated; internal memos show they believed they had enough evidence for a federal sex trafficking indictment.

Conclusion

⚖️ What the FBI actually “said” in essence

Epstein: Clear evidence of a trafficking network, thwarted in 2008 by Acosta’s plea deal.
Acosta: His deal stopped the FBI’s federal case in its tracks.
Clinton: Acknowledged as a documented passenger with Epstein, but the FBI said they lacked prosecutable evidence of abuse or trafficking tied to him.

FBI Statements in the 2019 Epstein Indictment (Southern District of New York)

The federal indictment unsealed in July 2019 charged Jeffrey Epstein with engaging in a sex trafficking conspiracy and trafficking minors. It describes his operation as a systematic exploitation of underage girls, including compelling them to engage in sexual acts for Epstein and others in locations including New York and Florida CourtListener+4The Washington Post+4Reuters+4 The Guardian+1.
The indictment confirmed that Epstein’s prior 2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) effectively shut down this federal investigation — underlining the FBI’s frustration that a thoroughly prepared federal case was derailed Journal of Gender, Race & Justice Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a July 2019 pretrial filing, the U.S. Attorney’s office described Epstein as a “serial sexual predator” who abused dozens of minors, some as young as 14, in both New York and Florida. This reflected the FBI’s broad and deeply disturbing findings Journal of Gender, Race & Justice+12Internet Archive+12Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals+12.

Latest Comments

Comment Just Now “Are you ready to wake up from the BIG LIE? If Blair really came to New York at the inception of social care, why was there no fanfare, and why are the agendas hidden? The only widely available video is of the Irish peace agreement. Doesn’t this suggest the Clinton Library is deliberately keeping those discussions out of sight? Could it be because social care is linked to Epstein and Chaturbate through the IT man they don’t want anyone to know about?”‘Cover-Up’: Democrats Rip Slow Release of Epstein Files
Comment1d I read it too, but my reaction was different. She confirmed Clinton’s involvement, which I already knew and which others had long identified as the prime suspect. What I still don’t have is access to the agenda that included Blair and the American Dunkley — the trilogy of men Blair himself prophesied at his England conference. We already know Blair was in New York in 1996.Maddow Blog | After seeing Ghislaine Maxwell transcript, Jim Jordan delivers dubious assurances

thestealingofemily.co.uk