Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard University, announced that he will scale back his public commitments, according to the university’s student newspaper. The announcement comes after the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released seven years of correspondence between Summers, a longtime figure in and supporter of the Democratic Party, and financier Jeffrey Epstein.
In a statement released Monday to The Harvard Crimson, Summers said it was part of an effort “to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me.”
The documents show that the two men exchanged messages as late as July 5, 2019 — one day before Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges, but years after he was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute.
In the hundreds of messages made public, Summers appeared to express trust in Epstein and confided in him about his efforts to pursue a romantic relationship with a woman he referred to as a menteeOne message from November 2018 shows Epstein describing himself as Summers’ “wing man,” and the correspondence indicates he continued advising Summers on the matter for several months.
“I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused,” Summers wrote in his statement to The Crimson.
“I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein,” he added.
Summers currently holds several professional roles, including serving as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress – a left-wing think tank – as well as a paid columnist for Bloomberg News, and a member of the board at OpenAI.
He also remains a University Professor at Harvard and serves as director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, responsibilities he will continue to oversee, his spokesman said, according to the outlet.
In a statement Monday, Summers said, “While continuing to fulfill my teaching obligations, I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, meanwhile,
Attorney Leah Saffian, who represents Maxwell, blasted Raskin’s actions as “a gross abuse of power” after workers at Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas were fired for leaking the correspondence. The emails were reportedly obtained without authorization and illegally passed to Raskin’s office before being released publicly.
“The congressman is a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, an attorney and law professor,” Saffian said Friday. “He must be aware that his conduct undermines the whole legal process. His action should be a matter for professional disciplinary action.”
Federal Bureau of Prisons officials confirmed the termination of multiple employees involved in the unauthorized access. Saffian said their decision to share the messages — and Raskin’s subsequent publication of them — amounted to “a breach of constitutional protections, including the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments afforded to all prisoners.”
The emails revealed Maxwell’s uncharacteristic optimism about her stay at the Bryan facility, describing a markedly different environment than the Florida prison where she was previously held.
“The food is legions better, the place is clean, the staff responsive and polite,” Maxwell wrote in one message. “I have not seen a single fight, drug deal, passed-out person or naked inmate running around. I am much, much happier here and more importantly, safe.”
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, considered one of the Court’s liberal voices, denied an emergency appeal from a Mexican family facing deportation, siding with the Trump administration.
The family, who fled cartel threats in Guerrero, Mexico in 2021, claimed they risk death if forced to return. Despite detailed evidence of cartel violence, immigration courts denied their asylum claim. Kagan declined to block their removal, choosing not to refer the case to the full Court.
Meanwhile, legal analyst Kerri Urbahn criticized Chief Judge James Boasberg’s handling of another deportation case, calling his actions “desperate” after the Supreme Court vacated his order. The case involved a deported MS-13 gang member whose return Boasberg demanded despite the Court ruling it belonged in Texas, not Washington, D.C.
SE E MO RE
In a highly anticipated legal move, President Donald Trump has filed a powerhouse appeal to New York’s Appellate Division, challenging his conviction in the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case.The appeal comes after months of legal battles and millions in taxpayer dollars spent on prosecuting Trump over thirty-four felony charges related to “falsifying business records,” a case that legal experts from across the political spectrum have repeatedly criticized as weak and politically motivated.Now,
Trump is determined to turn the tables, calling Bragg’s case “the most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history.” The appeal, which spans an impressive 111 pages (some reports list it at 96 pages), blasts Bragg’s case as nothing more than “Radical Democrat Lawfare.”Trump’s legal team argues that the entire case, which centers on alleged hush-money payments to a former adult film star, is built on a flawed legal foundation.In the filing, Trump’s legal team insists that the charges should be dismissed, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, federal and state constitutional protections, and established legal precedent. The appeal is a direct response to what Trump’s team describes as a politically motivated assault on the President.
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately overturned and dismissed,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement to Fox News Digital.“President Trump will keep defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn as he focused on his singular mission to Make America Great Again.” The Manhattan DA’s case, which was launched over a year ago, hinges on the payments made during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to silence allegations from Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress.
The case, however, has been widely criticized as weak because such financial transactions—while controversial—are far from unusual in the corporate world.Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are commonly used in various industries to protect privacy and silence accusations, making it difficult for prosecutors to argue that Trump’s actions were criminal.Despite these facts, Bragg and his office pressed forward, framing the case as one of felony-level criminal conduct. The charges involve accusations that Trump falsified business records related to these payments, with Bragg asserting that the records were altered to conceal the true nature of the transactions.
In New York, falsifying business records is typically classified as a misdemeanor, but Bragg argued that the charges should be elevated to felonies because they allegedly were part of a broader crime, one that remains unspecified. The court, however, ruled that this approach was valid, leading to Trump’s conviction.Yet, even legal experts who are not aligned with Trump have voiced skepticism about the case. Many have pointed out that Bragg’s case fails to meet the legal threshold for felony charges and is built largely on speculative claims.It is rare for such corporate transactions to be elevated to felony offenses, and many legal analysts believe Bragg’s case is based on a broad and unsubstantiated interpretation of the law.
For Trump’s supporters, the charges are simply a tool to undermine his political influence and distract from his successes during his presidency.“Bragg’s case was shaky from the very beginning,” said Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), who has been a vocal critic of the prosecution. “This is about weaponizing the justice system to target a political opponent.These payments are not inherently illegal. They happen in corporate America every day.” Tenney’s comments reflect widespread Republican sentiment that the charges against Trump are politically motivated, an extension of the larger effort by Democrats to weaken his influence and prevent his return to power.
The public perception of the case has been deeply divided along partisan lines. On one hand, Democrats have championed Bragg’s prosecution, viewing it as a much-needed accountability measure for a President who they believe skirted the law during his time in office.On the other hand, Republicans argue that the case is an abuse of power, part of a broader pattern of weaponized justice aimed at undermining political opponents.Trump’s legal battle is far from isolated. For years, the President has been at the center of numerous legal challenges—many of which critics claim were designed to prevent him from regaining power.From the Russia investigation to the impeachments, Trump has faced an ongoing onslaught of legal issues, each of which has been marked by partisan divisions and accusations of political warfare.The Arctic Frost investigation, a precursor to the current investigations into Trump’s alleged actions during the 2020 election, has been heavily criticized for its overreach.Meanwhile, the legal challenges related to the 2020 election, spearheaded by Special Counsel Jack Smith, have raised questions about the fairness and impartiality of the legal system.
For many Republicans, these investigations and prosecutions represent an all-out effort by the political establishment to use the justice system as a tool to defeat a political rival.While Democrats claim that these investigations are necessary to preserve the rule of law and protect American democracy, conservatives argue that they are simply another form of political attack designed to discredit and destroy Trump.
“The Democrats have weaponized the justice system at every turn,” said one Republican strategist. “From the Russia probe to impeachment, to the constant attacks on his businesses and campaign, it’s clear that the goal was never about justice—it was about stopping him from running again. And now, they’re trying to do the same thing with these baseless charges in New York.”In the wake of Trump’s legal challenges, the response from his supporters has been one of defiance.
“This is an abuse of power,” said a Trump supporter outside the courthouse. “The Democrats are afraid of him because they know that he represents everything they stand against. They will stop at nothing to take him down.”Despite the backlash, Trump’s legal team remains confident that they will ultimately prevail. The appeal filed by Trump’s lawyers is a direct challenge to the legality and fairness of the case against him.With the eyes of the nation—and the world—on this high-stakes legal battle, the outcome could have far-reaching consequences not only for Trump but also for the broader question of how political prosecutions are handled in the United States.As the case progresses, one thing is clear: Trump’s fight against what he describes as “Radical Democrat Lawfare” is far from over. His legal team is pushing back on every front, challenging the evidence, the procedures, and the very foundations of the case brought against him.Whether or not they will succeed in overturning his conviction remains to be seen, but the larger political implications of this case continue to unfold.For Trump, this is not just a legal battle—it is a fight for his political survival. The stakes are high, and the outcome will have a lasting impact on the future of American politics.
As the appeal moves forward, the political climate surrounding Trump remains as charged as ever, with both his supporters and detractors bracing for what comes next in this unprecedented and high-profile legal fight.