Image 01 Image 03

NBC Fires Today Host Matt Lauer for ‘Inappropriate Sexual Behavior’ at Work

NBC Fires Today Host Matt Lauer for ‘Inappropriate Sexual Behavior’ at Work

Network said they do not believe this is an isolated incident.

NBC has fired Matt Lauer, its leading anchor on the Today show, due to sexual harassment allegations. From The New York Times:

“On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer,” Andrew Lack, the NBC News president, said in the memo.

He said the allegation against Mr. Lauer “represented, after serious review, a clear violation of our company’s standards. As a result, we’ve decided to terminate his employment.”

“While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident.”

The firing occurred after Lauer attended a long meeting with the alleged victim and her lawyer, who proceeded to tell those in charge at NBC what happened. From Fox News:

“Over the course of several hours, my client detailed egregious acts of sexual harassment and misconduct by Mr. Lauer,” Ari Wilkenfeld of Wilkenfeld, Herendeen & Atkinson told Fox News in an emailed statement. “In fewer than than 35 hours, NBC investigated and removed Mr. Lauer…It is our hope that NBC will continue to do what it can to repair the damage done to my client—their employee—and any other women who may come forward.”

A source has told The New York Post that Lauer allegedly assaulted a female staffer during the Olympics:

The staffer, who has not been named and wishes to remain anonymous, complained to NBC bosses yesterday, prompting NBC News bosses to move fast and fire him.

A source told Page Six, “An NBC staffer come forward with a claim that Matt sexually assaulted her at the Olympics. There have been rumors about Matt having affairs with subordinates at NBC for years, but those were believed to be consensual. This incident in Rio was not.”

Another source tells us that the decision to fire Lauer was made late last night by NBC News chairman Andy Lack.

Savannah Guthrie broke the news on the Today Show:

From Fox News:

An emotional Guthrie admitted “we just learned this moments ago” and said the “Today” team is “devastated and we are still processing all of this.”

“All we can say is that we are heartbroken. I’m heartbroken for Matt. He is my dear, dear friend and my partner and he is beloved by many, many people here. And I’m heartbroken for the brave colleague who came forward to tell her story and any other women who have their own stories to tell.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Bucky Barkingham | November 29, 2017 at 7:43 am

They told me that if Trump were elected male sexual harassment would run rampant in the country – and they were right.

    Seriously Becky, who are ‘they’? Rachel Maddow, Rosie O’Donnell or Hilary Clinton? You’re saying that after actually being POTUS for less than 11 months in office all of this is my presidents fault? Do you work for CNN or the Washington Compost?

      rdmdawg in reply to C. Lashown. | November 29, 2017 at 8:13 am

      I think possibly that you’re missing the sarcasm in Bucky’s post. Yes, Rachel Maddow, and Rosie O’Donell did indeed warn us of this.

      Yeah, that’s a classic Instapundit joke. “They told me if I voted for John McCain banks would get away with destroying the economy…and they were right!” Then that would link to a story about Obama bailing out banks. Yadda yadda.

        Tom Servo in reply to Xmas. | November 29, 2017 at 9:34 am

        And Instapundit borrowed it himself – the original line was from William F. Buckley.

        “They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, we’d be at war in Vietnam within a year – and they were right!!!”

      Anchovy in reply to C. Lashown. | November 29, 2017 at 10:06 am

      Your sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

If we had to vote for which newsman was even more sanctimonious than Charlie Rose, it would have been Matt Lauer.

NBC says they do not believe it was an isolated incident – which means, once again, they knew of his predatory actions but kept quiet because he was another liberal “icon”.

Elections do have consequences – thank God.

Trump is Reagan with frickin’ laser beams attached to his head.

Paul In Sweden | November 29, 2017 at 7:56 am

Good to see that the Democrat Party’s War on Women is finally showing casualties.

    I find it amusing that the inevitable consequence of the complete purge of conservatives from these institutions is that the only possible targets of current witch-hunts is liberal stalwarts and icons.

    And they made Guthrie announce the hit. Those brave execs at NBC chose to hide behind Savannah’s behind. Gutless invertebrates.

Poor Matt Lauer. Bunch of trusting old lady viewers will be so disappointed. Could never figure out if he’s trying to look more like Pee Wee Herman or Jerry Seinfeld.

    G. de La Hoya in reply to G. de La Hoya. | November 29, 2017 at 8:23 am

    Anonymous claims during Rio Olympics I am seeing.

        snopercod in reply to G. de La Hoya. | November 29, 2017 at 9:07 am

        I read the article and it was devoid of content. So what was it that Lauer was supposed to have done, anyway? Did he compliment a staffer on her hairstyle or something? Everybody is in a frenzy over some unknown behavior. It’s just absurd.

          G. de La Hoya in reply to snopercod. | November 29, 2017 at 10:11 am

          Yes, that absurdity got him fired on the spot. I do have to admit that I do revel in the fact this little smug pecker-weed has some comeuppance as well as those that held him upon high 🙂

          4th armored div in reply to snopercod. | November 29, 2017 at 10:19 am

          in not stating the misbehavior leaves all sorts of imaginations.

          if what is alleged (and we have NO idea what it was) was illegal then Lauer should be arrested otherwise he may have been given a super secret buy out to be shamed. Doesn’t make much sense other than just a witch hunt.

          Swimming Test

          As part of the infamous “swimming test,” accused witches were dragged to the nearest body of water, stripped to their undergarments, bound and then tossed in to to see if they would sink or float. Since witches were believed to have spurned the sacrament of baptism, it was thought that the water would reject their body and prevent them from submerging. According to this logic, an innocent person would sink like a stone, but a witch would simply bob on the surface. The victim typically had a rope tied around their waist so they could be pulled from the water if they sank, but it wasn’t unusual for accidental drowning deaths to occur.

          Witch swimming derived from the “trial by water,” an ancient practice where suspected criminals and sorcerers were thrown into rushing rivers to allow a higher power to decide their fate. This custom was banned in many European counties in the Middle Ages, only to reemerge in the 17th century as a witch experiment, and it persisted in some locales well into the 18th century. For example, in 1710, the swimming test was used as evidence against a Hungarian woman named Dorko Boda, who was later beaten and burned at the stake as a witch.

          seems we have resurrected the various with hunts

First, I want to make clear that I firmly believe in “innocent til otherwise proven” as a non-negotiable principle of a free society.
People should not be punished over a mere allegation. Period.

HOWEVER, a little evil voice laughs in my head every time one of these self-proclaimed moral superiors is outed as the hypocrites they’ve always been.
They’re dropping like flies, victims of their own dishonest ‘rules’. Will they learn?
More popcorn, please!

    Ragspierre in reply to Exiliado. | November 29, 2017 at 9:47 am

    “I firmly believe in “innocent til otherwise proven” as a non-negotiable principle of a free society.”

    Proven by who, in what forum?

    You catch your employee stealing from you. What do you do regarding that employee’s employment?

      Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | November 29, 2017 at 9:57 am

      That’s why “at-will” employment is such an important principle – it doesn’t deal with issues of proof at all, just preference. Of course our administrative system has been whittling away at that principle, in its drive to gain control over everything.

      It’s not hard to invent scenarios – same one as you just stated, except you’re the employee, and you catch your boss embezzling company funds, and then he alters the books to try to show that you made the withdrawals. What do you do?

      For all criminal complaints that involve the judicial system, we have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less is tyranny.

        Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | November 29, 2017 at 10:10 am

        “…you’re the employee, and you catch your boss embezzling company funds, and then he alters the books to try to show that you made the withdrawals. What do you do?”

        File a criminal complaint for fraud.

        File a civil law suit for defamation.

        Make a public statement stating the factual truth.

        Report what you know to stake-holders.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | November 29, 2017 at 2:22 pm

          I’m no lawyer but two of the things you stated actually support due process under the law as the original post of this thread indicated. The latter two would not but they aren’t proof of guilt either but a form of testimony.

          Certain accusations could be carefully but fictionally crafted and thrown at you tomorrow that are completely unjustified and you’d be destroyed but for due process (if it is going to continue to exist in society going forward).

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 29, 2017 at 4:50 pm

          You’re not a lawyer, but are an idiot.

I suppose the complaint must have included credible evidence, or it must have been readily verifiable, for NBC to act this quickly. Does “sexual assault” mean rape, attempted rape, unwanted touching, or what?

    snopercod in reply to tarheelkate. | November 29, 2017 at 9:09 am

    That’s what I want to know. Do we have a blue dress here?

    I agree.
    For Flak to just flat out fire Lauer and for Lauer to accept the decision wordlessly means to me the accuser was credible, had corroborating evidence and that there was no way for NBC to sugarcoat it.
    It’s likely Flak was certain that if NBC tried sweep this under the rug their company would be burned to the ground legally.

      Tom Servo in reply to JohnC. | November 29, 2017 at 9:40 am

      Story coming out is that it wasn’t just sexual harrassment, it was actual Sexual Assault down at the Olympics in Rio. Sounds like NBC looked at the evidence and said “oh shit.”

      Since it was in Brazil, it probably gets him off the hook for criminal charges, but I smell a mega lawsuit being filed very, very shortly.

    C. Lashown in reply to tarheelkate. | November 29, 2017 at 9:31 am

    re: “…the complaint must have included credible evidence.”

    I once knew a sub sailor who could fart on demand, maybe he kept asking all these feminist babes to pull his finger? That would be highly offensive to someone who thought their $hit didn’t stink. I can see Lauer doing that sort of thing! /ROFL

Don’t forget that the Dems still call Pence a misogynist for avoiding this sort of thing.

Lauer should have read that part about glass houses etc. But as are most liberals, they are hypocrites. Think about all of the scoldings and finger-wagging from the msm and now look at who were the most outspoken. Schadenfreude is a wonderful thing!

I recall that Matt Lauer’s Clinton/Trump townhall was the only General Election 2016 debate-style event that seemed at all fair. It actually made Trump look good and Lauer look professional and fair. Part of me wonders if the swiftness of the firing isn’t, in part, retribution for that event.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Leslie Eastman. | November 29, 2017 at 9:35 am

    I saw the Clinton campaign making much ado about relatively softball questions with little followup by Lauer. IMO Lauer gave Hillary lead ins to defending herself regarding the issues that were in need of being addressed. I guess we could say Lauer didn’t ask Hillary Boxers or Briefs(thongs or diapers…) Other than that in my fuzzy recollection, Lauer was much tougher on Hillary; but I would have to watch the interview again to be certain.

    Huge salary and soft ratings made Lauer an easy target of opportunity. Sexual misconduct is just the excuse used for pulling the trigger now. NBC is just riding the wave. I’m pretty sure they have a younger, prettier, cheaper version of Lauer hanging on a hook somewhere in a warehouse full of Matt Lauer wannabes.

I see a big opportunity for MeAgain Kelly

It seems the NYT was going to break the story

OleDirtyBarrister | November 29, 2017 at 10:49 am

Katie Couric made public comments way back in 2012 about Lauer playing grab-ass with her. Somehow, it never came to the fore and reached a boiling point.

I hate this guy but hang on… his career was terminated over allegations. Allegations. Not presented with opportunity to confront his accuser nor see the evidence against him in or defend himself against such accusations.

    rdmdawg in reply to Fen. | November 29, 2017 at 11:20 am

    If they nail him for all the wrong reasons, they’re still nailing a sanctimonious liberal twat. That’s a win regardless, in my book.

    Anonamom in reply to Fen. | November 29, 2017 at 12:25 pm

    We don’t really know what was presented to the network, though. Just because WE only know of the allegations doesn’t necessarily mean that THEY weren’t presented with more. I agree with you, though, that this whole “me, too” thing smacks of a witch hunt.

      C. Lashown in reply to Anonamom. | November 29, 2017 at 3:48 pm

      Yes, in certain respects I agree. In the reptilian part of my mind I keep wondering how so many different individuals could be the subject of the amorphous ‘sexual assault’ victim class. These seem to be the same ones who for decades have stood and encouraged younger women to stand up against the male patriarchy, while themselves were willing to prostitute their own integrity and veracity to gain or maintain their own position of prominence.

    Blueshot in reply to Fen. | November 29, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    Allegations? Sure it’s an allegation. But to NBC whose seen the allegation it must be so serious that they decided there is no downside to firing him but keeping him would be a disaster.

    This guy makes $18 million a year and is the head of one of the company’s flagship programs. You just don’t toss him out casually.

    No NBC got evidence that was so severe that they immediately pulled the trigger on his career.

Medical reports, photos of treatment, video…’s the thing…..Folks knew about Lauer. I watched that debate. He seemed to be trying to be fair. But he crossed the Hillary faction, didn’t he?

So, I figure an actual rape, cocaine possibly, and it’s virulent enough to have a serious squick factor. NBC has probably been ready for this for a while, imo.

If folks knew about it and didn’t do anything they should be fired too.

I just dealt with this in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism). A night had been molesting preteen girls since 1998. The mothers were silenced with threats of lawfare. SCA leadership’s legal strategy was to remain judgment-proof, with no concern for the victims. Their cover up for the “greater good” (protecting the SCA from fiscal ruin after the Ben Schraeger settlement) enabled the Knight pedophile to victimize five other girls over a 10-year period.

While it may seem swift punishment, I’d wager that the legal build-up to this point has been going on for some time. Companies are obliged to investigated allegations of sexual harassment and that can take a while.

I see all these sexual assault allegations as a shift of power toward women and away from men. The new rule is that any powerful man can be brought down by any random 14-year-old girl who only has to claim that he winked at her and made her feel uncomfortable. With these low standards what man can’t be accused?

    Ragspierre in reply to floridaman. | November 29, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    What an astounding…and filthy…lode of bullshit.

    tom_swift in reply to floridaman. | November 29, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    The new rule

    Unfortunately, it’s not new.

    Some years ago I was puttering around in some office space adjoining a doctor’s office. The doctor stuck his head in and asked me if I’d hang around for a few minutes and keep my ears open. His office was empty that day except for himself and a patient he expected to come in for a brief consultation of some sort. This patient was a woman who was known to sometimes, well, “make up” things. That’s all the information the doctor volunteered. So, I did hang around; not close enough to make out what was said, but close enough to be a witness in case of untoward events.

    As it happened … nothing happened. But the fact that this doctor—by no means a frivolous man—felt it wise to take precautions against some sort of silliness was very striking.

We are now in the second phase of the war on men using the specter of “sexual harassment” and “inappropriate behavior” complaints. This is how this works. First an icon is found and promoted as indicative of “normal” behavior. This would be someone such as Harvey Weinstein, who had a long history of such activity, which was accepted by his peers and culture in which he lived and worked. This person is then demonized to an outrageous extent while his “victims” are granted absolution for THEIR actions in this behavior. Then additional bad actors are found and exposed. This establishes the narrative that this behavior is heinous and widespread and that the actors are always protected.

Next phase 2 begins. This is where accusations are made against people working for companies or institutions which have deep pockets. The “victim” is usually represented by a high power law firm. I suppose that6 the firm is working pro bono and that the only goal of the “victim” is to secure the termination of the “abuser” and not to line her pockets by taking legal action against the “abuser’s” deep pocket employer. Just as MGM seems to be obstructing the investigation of the Las Vegas shooting to stymie law suits, most employers are going to severe ties with accused employee immediately to limit their liability. We are now in the lawfare phase of this assault. Look for more such actions to occur.

    murkyv in reply to Mac45. | November 29, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    Gloria Allred could be making a fortune right now off of these liberal abuse cases if she wasn’t such a partisan hack who only goes after Republicans

Its like Christmas every day lately!

I woke up today, and when I logged into Facebook my Liberal ex-girlfriend was having a complete meltdown over this.

I was so happy that I literally danced a jig in my living room!!