Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, the bard said... but he forgot to mention the corollary, especially if there's a financial incentive.
The description of the relationship in the article linked below sounds nothing like the Harvey Weinstein stories. Lauer appears to have had a consensual relationship, which ended in a way that motivated the person he had it with to damage him. Lots of lawyerly touches in the accusations to make it embarrassing for him to defend himself. He's had to share those to reveal the underlying framework the accuser is deploying. Basically, she appears in hindsight to have rebranded a consensual relationship as non-consensual in order to damage Lauer. Her lawyer has carefully presented this in the way that she has in order to extort a payment.
So easy for people to pretend that they are the victim in a case like this, where in fact they are the bad actor. The accuser had a powerful motive. A motive which might easily induce her to lie about the details. It's so easy to reframe a relationship as non-consensual in hindsight.
But why should anyone presume Lauer is anything worse than a philanderer? His real crime was against his family. Let his wife divorce him if she wishes.
The underlying problem is that this kind of legal engagement has nothing to do with justice. It's all about unscrupulous lawyers getting engaged in difficult situations of this type so they can get a share of the payout.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/matt-lauer-pens-open-letter-ronan-farrow-book-allegations-1246419
| 