Larry Summers and the Jeffrey Epstein Emails

Emails between economist Larry Summers and pimp Jeffrey Epstein have come to light. COURIER and Camaron Stevenson have set them up very nicely to be searchable by name and date here.¹ Larry Summers is a distinguished Harvard economist about 70 years old who used to be President of Harvard, and Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton and remains a big advisor to top Democrats. He is in trouble for two things. First, he remained a close friend of Epstein’s even after Epstein’s conviction for pimping under-age girls back in 2009; some of the emails to Epstein are dated just before he went to jail the second time in 2019. (Note that Epstein was never charged with statutory rape or sex crimes or pedophilia: he was convicted of pimping and later with it again.²) Second, in the emails he jokes around with Epstein about his hopes to bed London School of Economics tenured professor Keyu Jin, who had gotten her PhD from Harvard in 2009 at age 27 and later moved to Hong Kong University. [Nov. 20: It seems he *did* bed her one time or more some time before the emails, but was now denied.³ ] She is very pretty and is the daughter of a former China Vice Minister of Finance. Professor Summers, as I will denote him⁴, married Victoria Perry in 1984 and had three children, then divorced and married Harvard English professor Elisa New who had three children from her previous marriage. There is no evidence of any impropriety while Keyu Jin was a student, but Summers was a senior scholar in a position to give her useful input at the time he was pursuing her.

At the time of first publishing this, I have not looked over all the emails. I decided I would publish my views on the situation as it seems to be, so I can get them out quickly. I do hope to revise this, so revisit ericrasmusen.substack.com for possible updates and more quotes from emails. I am realizing that I am too academic: when writing a substack, I take too much finding sources and quotes, and it is better sometimes to be quick than to be thorough. The narrative now is shaping up to be that Summers is a monster who preys on young students of his and ought to be fired immediately. That’s not it.

The actual reason Professor Summers is being cancelled is that he committed adultery, but the woman, another economist, ended the physical relationship and in effect just said, “Let’s be friends.” And he talked about it with Jeffrey Epstein.

I believe adultery is a sin, so I think this was bad behavior (and I wonder about his divorce from Victoria Perry, which may have been much worse). I’ve even written a scholarly paper sympathetic to civil and criminal laws against adultery.⁵ But if I were running Harvard I wouldn’t punish him. I have no evidence that it had anything to do with Harvard. Plus, Professor Summers has received ample punishment in the form of loss to his reputation and damage to his wife and children. He is rich enough not to miss the income, but he will literally lose millions of dollars as a result of loss of speaking engagements, consulting opportunities, and so forth. He won’t care that thousands or millions of hoi polloi think badly of him for a few days, but he will care that at economics conferences everybody will be trying to restrain their snickers. The damage to family may be the worst thing. CNBC reports Summers as saying,

“I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused. I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein.”

“While continuing to fulfill my teaching obligations, I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort.”

Epstein had given serious money for serious research at Harvard long before the episodes in the emails.⁶

What people will bring up is that Summers is 28 years older than Jin and he is more famous and powerful. Women hate it when men are attracted to younger women.⁷ And many people believe that there is a power imbalance between the two of them. I don’t think so. People think that there is a power imbalance between me and the Pepsi Corporation when I buy a can of Pepsi too. Pepsi is much more powerful than me, but they can’t make me buy their drink, and they can’t even drive up the price because of bargaining power. They have something I want— the drink— and I have something they want— the money. It is hard to say either side is more powerful. Similarly, in this case Professor Jin wanted advice on her articles and perhap a favorable letter for her promotions, and Professor Summers wanted to hang out with a beautiful and intelligent woman, even platonically, and have a 10% chance of capturing her body. He had no way to pressure her except by withholding benefits she wouldn’t have gotten anyway except for her pretty face.⁸

I should add that though Jin is very likely a patriotic Red Chinese and would tell her dad about anything interesting she came across, but that probably doesn’t come into play. This is in the period 2017-2019, when Summers had no position in government because Trump was in power, and because Jin was actually a real, serious, economist, good enough to be a reasonable candidate for a job at LSE though definitely not good enough for tenure.⁹

I am not shocked that a Harvard professor would lust after a woman even though he was married. I am a Calvinist, and a man, and I know the depravity of man. (Especially Harvard men, I might say as a Yalie.) What does shock me is Professor Summers’s recklessness in email and messaging about it with Jeffery Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein, remember, is widely thought to be a blackmailer, either on his own, or for Mossad or for selling to the highest bidder. An old man’s advice: don’t spill your personal secrets to a blackmailer. If you feel you really have to, because it’s somebody like Jeffrey Epstein who’s a world expert on charming rich people, don’t do it in writing: phone him. Remember the old Washington adage:

Don’t sign anything you write. And don’t write anything you sign.

Professor Summers is not only smart, joked about as a product of the Nobel Sperm Bank¹⁰, he has gotten in trouble for this before! At the World Bank, a memo by an underling was published under his name (and he would have agreed it was correct, as I and all other good economists would) saying that the best place to locate toxic waste dumps was poor countries. I won’t go into it now, or find the link, but this is so economically incontrovertible and politically suicidal that for many years I used it as an example in my Business and Government class. It was also good for teaching because the memo was leaked by Summers’s political enemies, Gore people as I recall, who wanted to keep him from being Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton in 1993. They succeeded, and Summers took a low-profile job in Treasury, moving up to #2 because of his talent, and briefly becoming Secretary of the Treasury as a reward for good and faithful service. That’s rather a digression, but the point is that Summers knew that anything on email had a good chance of being leaked. In the Epstein Files, some of the Summers embarassment is from emails. Some of it is from messaging too, which is more secure but which I wouldn’t use to spill my guts on personal issues if I had powerful enemies or was talking to somebody likely to be indicted someday. And he even thought about these things. Witness this 2016 email to Epstein:

So why was Professor Summers so foolish? I invite answers.

The last thing I’ll talk about is a personal problem, but one that we all have in some way. What do I do if I run into Summers? I might, even though I haven’t for 40 years. I visit Cambridge, Mass. I go to conferences. He won’t remember the name of this ancient foreign student, certainly not from class, probably not from my work (which is in a different area of econ) or my cancelling (which everybody forgets pretty soon). Actually, he probably will remember me from this Substack, which is nicely self-referential. In any case, suppose I run into him, and then have the possibility of half an hour at the bar or at dinner? What do I do?

The general pattern of this problem is: What do you do if you meet someone you’ve met once or twice before who has been publicly disgraced for good reason? I’ve thought of this with other economists too. Rafael Robb of the University of Pennsylvania beat his wife to death. Don McCloskey of the University of Chicago got a sex change operation. What do I do if I meet them?

I invite comment. I know that really what I should do is get a chance to share the Gospel with each of them. I think this means I should endeavor to get them into an intimate setting such as dinner or beers where I can explain it to them. The main idea of Christianity is this: We are all sinners, to a greater or lesser extent but all deserving of damnation. We deserve punishment, but Jesus Christ died on the cross as a substitute for those of us who have faith in him, no matter how great their sins (and maybe for others). Put your faith in Jesus and your sins will be wiped away, and you will be happier in this world and the next, freed from your guilt if not from your other worries and misfortunes. Rafael Robb killed his wife; Donald McCloskey deserted his wife and castrated himself; Larry Summers intended to commit adultery against his wife; but all can be forgiven. Just confess your sin, and love God.

It is a truism that gross sinners are more open to God than normal, respectable, people. Maybe in the end, Professors Robb, McCloskey, and Summers, you will praise God for the sin that made you repent.

---

Notes, unincorporated

December 2, 2017 on taxes.¹¹

---

October 17, 2017 on being cancelled.¹²

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:48 PM LHS <
Is there risk that u are staked our re tmrw night

On Nov 30, 2018, at 10:35 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
im a pretty good wing man, no? anymore, how great larry is comments and i would havevhad to barf. great fun

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:46 PM LHS < > wrote:
You were good.
Thought if u didn’t know that we had been a couple she gave it away w familiarity and barbed comments.
Think for now I’m going nowhere with her except economics mentor.
I think I’m right now in the seen very warmly in rear view mirror category.
She did not want to have a drink cuz she was “tired”
I left the hotel lobby somewhat abruptly.
When I’m reflective I think I’m dodging a bullet. There are huge ups with her but very selfinvolved and to get her to be good probably requires more firmness than I enjoy.
Think right thing is to cut off contact. Suspect she will miss it. Problem is I will too.

On Nov 30, 2018, at 10:53 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
once you decide which way, we can set it up with option to purchase

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:54 PM LHS < > wrote:
What number?
 
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:45 PM LHS <
I’11 show it to her.
U have returned to the press

On Nov 29, 2018, at 4:47 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
short lived, no worry

On Dec 1, 2018, at 8:57 AM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
results?

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 9:08 AM LHS > wrote:
I sent a note just asking her to txt when she was up cuz I had something brief to say to her.
Didn’t want to push cuz she takes her 930 presentation here very seriously.
Better after her talk.
Am I thanking her or being sorry re my being married. I think the former.

On Dec 1, 2018, at 9:11 AM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
thanking her for fortitude in dealing with what has obvioulsy been a tough situation. and acknowlegin both how difficult it has been coupled with your mate insensitivty. and
apologizing for not fully recogbnizing how difficult it has been 

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 10:29 AM LHS < > wrote:
Game day at conference she was extremely good
Smart
Assertive and clear
Gorgeous.
I’m f---.
 
On Dec 1, 2018, at 10:31 AM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
well your debating tips obviously worked as ? youre ---, was my expression inserted as one to remember:)

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 10:38 AM LHS <> wrote:
Yup

On Dec 1, 2018, at 1:34 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
 [??? something messed up in the House document?-Eric Rasmusen]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 1:52 PM Larry Summers < > wrote:
Call me or give number
She did well was mostly into that
Took my suggestions re her talk
Interested in my commentary on her outfits
Was appreciative but seemed very dry eyed on my message re marriage pigheaded etc
I referenced your having figured us out told me to be fair and got me thinking
Suspects she thinks richer dialog between us.
Think cooling off while I’m away is good thing
 
On Dec 25, 2018, at 9:26 AM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
being asked for 3 names to replace mnuchin

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 9:00 PM Larry Summers <
Is calling from here prudent
 
On Dec 15, 2018, at 10:38 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
561 655 7626

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM Larry Summers <> wrote:
She wants no contact except re article
I’m having very good time w lisa
I’m avoiding contact
I’m off to China. Told her.
 
On Dec 15, 2018, at 10:07 AM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
news?

On Dec 16, 2018, at 1:52 AM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 12:27 PM Larry Summers <
In China. Too much talk may be mistake.
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 21, 2018, at 7:01 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
im in palm beach all weekend
 
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:42 PM Larry Summers <
Yup. Want to discuss the Donald at some point
Curious re Dersh

On Dec 21, 2018, at 6:29 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
you back?

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:23 PM Larry Summers <
Will
Call tonite or at some point.
Will u be visiting Mara Lago.

On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM Larry Summers < > wrote:
I 11 call sometime today.
 
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:06 PM Larry Summers
What number ru at?

On Dec 25, 2018, at 1:29 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
561 655 7626
 
On Dec 26, 2018, at 8:36 AM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
davos nothing personal-- trying to bring more sitting rather than former. demand 150% of past for attendance.

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 1:54 PM Larry Summers < > wrote:
If i want to go can u get me invited.

On Dec 26, 2018, at 2:51 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
not likely. ive gotten 6 so far, and was told after 4 no more

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 2:53 PM Larry Summers <
Too bad
Can we lock in next year now.
Will only revert if Chinese dynamics require.

From: Larry Summers
Sent: 1/4/2019 7:01:05 PM
To: J [jeeyacation@gmail.com]
Modestly interesting developments re dear Abby issue. Quite confused.
Trump seems about same

On Jan 4, 2019, at 1:24 PM, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
back?

Discussion with Eric Maskin of voteng methods. These are emails between Maskin and Summers. Then Summers emailed Epstein, which is why they are in the files.¹³

---

March 16, 2019

---

---

Footnotes

1

COURIER has compiled the 20,000 documents from Epstein’s estate, released by the US House Oversight Committee on November 12, 2025, into an easily searchable repository. Find something interesting? Let us know: camaron@couriernewsroom.com

2. Though the charges against Epstein have never been for anything variations of being a pimp, he undoubtedly did other bad things. From what I’ve heard, he liked to have girls massage him sexually, and that must have included 16- and 17-year-olds.

3. From June 16, 2019:

4. Should I call him Larry, Summers, Professor Summers, or “that degenerate”? The last is a joke. Economists always call him Larry when they talk about him in context (that is, when he won’t be confused with Harvard’s Larry Katz). But I had him as a professor at MIT when I took first-year macro, and I haven’t seen him since 1984, so I would have a hard time calling him Larry to his face. So I settled on a combination of Summers and Professor Summers. I’ve never met Professor Jin. They are both far from my research area.

5. Once when I gave a lecture on this paper to a scholarly audience, my inviter said it was fun because he could watch the audience and he knew which were committing adultery.

“An Economic Approach to Adultery Law,” Chapter 5, pp. 70-91 of Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, edited by Antony Dnes and Robert Rowthorn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.A long- term relationship such as marriage will not operate efficiently without sanctions for misconduct, of which adultery is one example. Traditional legal sanctions can be seen as different combinations of various features, differing in who initiates punishment, whether punishment is just a transfer or has real costs, who gets the transfer or pays the costs, whether the penalty is determined ex ante or ex post, whether spousal rights are alienable, and who is punished. Three typical sanctions, criminal penalties for adultery, the tort of alienation of affections, and the self-help remedy of justification are formally modelled. The penalties are then discussed in a variety of specific applications to past and present Indiana law. http://rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen_02.BOOK.adultery.pdf

6. When Summers was President of Harvard, Epstein donated millions to start a center on evolution. It was top-notch.

7. A digressive and transgressive thought: is that last sentence deconstructionism? Women will deny this, but I would argue that some are lying and some have that as a motive, as a class, without even knowing it, and for underlying social and scientific reasons. I think that’s what Deconstructionists and marxists generally do for a living.

8. There is widespread blindness to the huge advantages a pretty woman has in getting things out of men. Trading of sexual favors ordinarily benefits both sides— or, in terms of longterm material benefit, benefits the woman more than the man. It is the pathological case in which the woman is materially hurt. (I use “materially” because the spiritual effect is different.) E.g. , from Bluesky:

I just came across this too:

9. I’m not sure if she had tenure at LSE. The UK uses a different system, and perhaps doesn’t even have tenure at all. She had two top publications, no lower ones, and lots of working papers at the time of this curriculum vitae (our name for a resume).

10. Both his parents were moderately well-known economists. One uncle was Ken Arrow, and another was Paul Samuelson. Not only did those two win the Nobel Prize, but one can argue that they were the best economists to win the Nobel Prize.

11. The first Mrs. Summers was a high-powered tax lawyer. I find tax loopholes fascinating. They are a good intellectual exercise.

12. Summers on cancellings:

From: jeffrey E. [jeeyacation@gmail.com]
Sent: 9/12/2018 6:15:20 PM
To: Larry Summers
Subject: Re: This morning
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2016/12/13/jason-mcdaniel/ranked-choice-voting-likely-means- lower-turnout- more-errors difficult to judge one way or the other. turnout, does not reflect ethnicity.? stable does not mean same.. looking at the argumnents on both sides, I would have to conclude in your words a big nothingburger

From: “Maskin, Eric”
Date: September 11, 2018 at 10:24:21 PM EDT
To: LHS
Subject: RE: This morning
I believe there are, but don’t know how careful they are. I will try to get you references.
 

Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:23 PM
To: Maskin, Eric <11
Cc: Ihsoffice
Subject: Re: This morning
Are there empirical studies on turnout.

On Sep 11, 2018, at 10:20 PM, Maskin, Eric < > wrote:
Yes, we can expect more extremists to run under RCV. But also more centrists (e.g., Bloomberg). Since the centrists are closer to the median voter, they will defeat the extremists. The evidence I have seen suggests that RCV increases turn-out. [But it’s important that voters be given the choice to rank as many or few candidates as they like, so that a voter always has the option of voting for a single candidate (in effect, he would be ranking all other candidates as tied for second). In practice, most voters choose to rank two or three candidates, but a significant fraction just rank one] In fact the increase in the diversity of candidates under RCV is related to turn-out. If RCV had been used in 2016, Bernie Sanders could have run as an independent in the general election without fear of guaranteeing a Trump victory. Many of the Bernie supporters who stayed home on election day might then have voted---and presumably would have ranked Clinton second. This would have given her a victory over Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and possibly elsewhere).
Eric

From: LHS
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:52 PM
To: Maskin, Eric
Subject: Re: This morning
I get that formal argument
What about aspects not quite in model.
More folk will run from extremes if they can attract more First run votes. Candidates can position a bit.
Separately I pitched this to someone today.
He said he had heard that because of its greater complexity African American and lower income turnout was depressed.
Is there evidence on turnout impacts?

On Sep 11, 2018, at 6:05 PM, Maskin, Eric
Hi Larry,
Thank you very much for taking the meeting this morning. I’m glad you found it worthwhile, and I agree with you that
Adam Friedman’s commitment to the project is impressive.
I AM serious about working on this---it’s a nice opportunity to make important practical use of some interesting theory.
Voting rules may seem nerdy and dry, but they can make an enormous difference to actual politics
The formal argument that RCV promotes centrism better than the current system (plurality rule) is straightforward.
Suppose that most voters vote ideologically in the sense that the closer a candidate is to their own position on the left- right spectrum, the more like they are to vote for him. Then under majority rule (my favorite voting system)---in which voters rank candidates and the winner is the candidate who beats all other in pairwise comparisons----the winner will be the median voter’s favorite candidate -----in other words, the most centrist candidate gets elected (this assumes that there are enough candidates running so that there is one who is reasonably close to the median voter). Now observe that RCV is in between majority rule and plurality rule, and so will promote centrism better than plurality rule.
Best wishes, Eric

From: LHS
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 4:16 PM
To: Maskin, Eric
Cc: Ihsoffice
Subject: This morning
It was fun and interesting.
I admire your friends determination.
Are you serious about working on this?
Has anyone done a full analysis of this and polarization.
Seems like on one hand it might encourage Ralph Nader cuz he d get more first round votes and not elect George bush. This might be bad. On other hand, gore would not have to move left to take Nader vote. If I like centrism is it clear that this is better.
I get that it avoids arbitrary outcomes but assume that a tea party nut is as likely to elect a dem as a lefty is to elect et a republican.
Anyway thanks for setting up.
Btw I gave them 10,000.
Larry

13.