Connecticut
Exclusive | Ex-CBS anchor Josh Elliott back on Connecticut dating scene after ugly Liz Cho split
Ex-CBS host Josh Elliott is looking for love eight months after he filed for divorce from “Eyewitness News” anchor Liz Cho.
“Josh is out and about on the dating scene in Fairfield County,” a spy exclusively tells Page Six. “He’s been seen at the bars in the area where middle-aged singles congregate.”
A second source tells Page Six, “Josh isn’t dating anyone, but he is open to meeting people. His daughter is his priority.”
Page Six can also reveal that Elliott moved out of his and Cho’s estimated $4.2 million Connecticut marital home in January.
In court papers dated Jan. 29 and obtained by Page Six, Cho revealed Elliott moved out of their home and into a new residence without her knowledge.
Cho claimed she was notified by Optimum on Jan. 21, regarding her ex installing internet at his new home.
“The Defendant learned for the first time from said communication that on or about January 15, 2026, the Plaintiff secured an unfurnished rental residence located in Southport, Connecticut,” the filing read.
“It is now clear that the Plaintiff surreptitiously entered a new lease…” the court papers continued.
A rep for Elliott did not respond to Page Six’s request for comment.
Page Six broke the ousted CBS anchor filed for divorce from Cho after a decade of marriage on June 20, 2025.
“The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably,” the court papers read. Elliott asked for a “dissolution of the marriage” and for “an equitable distribution of all property, both real and personal.”
Cho responded to her estranged husband’s complaint on Nov. 6 and filed a cross-complaint against him. She also stated their marriage “has broken down irretrievably.”
The divorce became messy when Cho requested “copies of written correspondence, emails, cards, WeChat messages, Facebook messages, social media messaging, instant messaging, telephonic text messages, transcribed voicemail messages or any written forms of communication” between Elliott and “any person, other than the defendant, with whom [Elliott] have or have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, from July 11, 2015, to the present.”
Elliott objected the request on the “grounds that the time frame of the request for production is unreasonable, unnecessary, harassing and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Cho also requested “monies spent for the benefit of any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, other than the defendant,” “property given or transferred by you to any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, other than the defendant,” “monies spent for your benefit by any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship with, other than the defendant.”
The TV personality in addition requested financial records, documentation proving Elliott’s search for employment — as he was ousted from CBS in 2017 — travel invoices, and more. Elliott objected to the requests.
A source close to the couple previously told Page Six, “This is standard in a divorce. Her lawyer is doing a thorough document request. The documents she is requesting are standard.” The insider also insisted there is no evidence Elliott had a relationship with anyone outside the marriage.
Also in the Jan. 29 court filing, Cho filed a motion for contempt against Elliott regarding their jointly owned marital Connecticut mansion.
Cho claimed Elliott arranged for a moving truck to come to the marital residence while she was on vacation with her daughter on Jan. 19.
Cho claimed Elliott moved a “significant amount of furniture and furnishings from the marital residence,” and their “two Portuguese water dogs,” which she alleged at the time of the filing were not returned.
The court docs continued to allege, “On Tuesday, January 6, 2026, [Cho] realized that she was missing a valuable watch and earrings from her jewelry bag. As [Elliott] is the only other person who had access to the missing watch and jewelry, [Cho] believes [Elliott] is in possession of such personal property.”
She claimed his alleged actions are a “willful violation” of the court’s orders.
The insider alleged Elliott was the one to take care of the dogs and that he took “a small amount of furniture.”
In Elliott’s response to her filing, he objected to her request and claimed her allegations are “false and inflammatory.”
He claimed in court papers, “[Cho] alleges [Elliott] ‘ransacked’ and ‘abandoned’ the marital residence — claims that are patently false and intended to annoy, harass and intimidate [Elliott].
“[Elliott] did not ransack the marital home. He did not damage the property. He did not render the residence uninhabitable. He removed limited personal property and furnishings so he would have a safe haven from [Cho’s] escalating and erratic behavior direct at not only [Elliott], but his minor child as well.”
In a separate filing, he continued to defend his actions by alleging, “[Elliott] removed only limited furniture items and furnishings, many from the basement, solely to furnish a new residence after removing himself and his child from a hostile environment created by [Cho]. All property remains intact and subject to equitable distribution.”
In regard to the jewelry claim, Elliott said, “Perhaps most egregious is [Cho’s] baseless accusation that [Elliott] stole her jewelry. This allegation is made without evidence, without corroboration and without even a good-faith attempt to verify the truth.”
He then accused her of “monitoring and listening to [Elliott’s] private phone calls; rifling through [Elliott’s] personal belongings and closet; leaving the marital residence for extended periods without communication despite the presence of two dogs requiring daily care” and more claims.
He is requesting that the court deny her motion for contempt and they are due in court on March 20.
Lawyers for Cho and Elliott did not respond to Page Six’s request for comment regarding the divorce.
Elliott, 54, and Cho, 55, met while working for ABC and got married in July 2015.
This was the second marriage for both, as they each share a daughter from their previous relationships.
Cho has been with ABC on “Eyewitness News” since 2003, while Elliott was with ABC’s “Good Morning America” from 2011 to 2014.
After a brief stint with NBC, he joined CBSN as lead daytime anchor in March 2016. Nearly a year later, he was let go from the company.
Elliott has been out of the spotlight in recent years, but is now in talks to join Gayle King and Nate Burleson on “CBS Mornings,” Awful Announcing reported.
The costs of climate change are being borne by those who did the least to cause it. This Earth Day, we should expect more than symbolic gestures. We need our elected officials to stand up to harmful industry influence and deliver policies that hold major polluters accountable.
The effects of climate change have been inescapable across the world, especially in Connecticut. Just last month in March there was persistent unseasonable heat that was so intense that the continental United States registered its most abnormally hot month in 132 years of records, according to federal weather data. And the next year looks to turn the dial up on global warmth even more.
Connecticut residents are now more than ever facing the harmful and costly effects of climate change disasters. These costly disasters and effects have no limits on who is impacted.
A newly published DEEP report showed that climate change had already adversely affected Connecticut residents, businesses, and infrastructure over decades. Extreme weather has cost the state and private sector billions of dollars since 2010. This will continue, according to recent data on climate change.
Between 1880 and 2020, Connecticut experienced climate change impacts, including eight to nine inches of sea level rise; increased coastal erosion, warming of Long Island Sound; warmer hottest and coldest days of the year; increasing annual rainfall; decreasing annual snowfall; and increased rainstorms and flash flooding. In just 2023 and 2024 Connecticut faced multiple extreme weather events from deadly flooding in Southbury, deadly brush fires in Berlin, and millions of dollars of damage to farms from drought.
Let’s be clear, Connecticut taxpayers and residents are paying for 100% of these climate costs, costs that are falling on those least responsible.
Since the 2016 Paris Agreement, just 57 companies are directly linked to 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Carbon Majors Database. These companies include fossil fuel giants like Chevron, Shell, and BP, who raked in record profits in the last quarter of 2023.
Why shouldn’t those most responsible pay their fair share?
Fossil fuel companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to influence lawmakers and block climate action, because they know real accountability would cost them far more. Instead of paying for the damage their pollution has caused, they’re investing heavily in lobbying and political influence to avoid “polluter pays” policies and shift those costs onto taxpayers.
In light of Climate Superfund laws being introduced in over a dozen states including here in Connecticut, fossil fuel companies are actively shaping climate legislation to shield themselves from accountability. With more than 30 lawsuits filed by states and cities across the U.S., the industry is pushing for legal immunity to avoid paying for climate-related damages. These efforts are aimed at blocking “polluter pays” policies, like climate superfund laws, that would require them to cover the billions of dollars in costs tied to environmental harm, infrastructure impacts, and years of misleading the public.
This Earth Day, we need to flip the script. For too long, fossil fuel companies have pushed the idea that climate change is the result of individual choices, telling us to turn off the lights, take shorter showers, and shrink our personal footprint. Those actions matter, but they’re not the whole story.
The truth is, a small number of corporations are responsible for a massive share of global emissions. While they promote small lifestyle changes, they continue expanding fossil fuel production and investing millions to block meaningful climate policy.
We won’t see real progress until we name what’s actually happening. Accountability must be at the core of climate action, shifting the burden off everyday people and onto the biggest polluters. That means strong policies, real enforcement, and a firm commitment to a “polluter pays” approach. The Connecticut Legislature must act and pass a Climate Superfund bill to move costs off taxpayers and require fossil fuel companies to finally pay their fair share.
Julianna LaRue is an organizer for the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Amtrak says it will not close any railroad bridges along Connecticut’s shoreline during the 2026 World Cup, backing away from a potential proposal that had sparked concerns from boaters, harbor officials, and marine businesses.
In an email Tuesday to NBC Connecticut, Amtrak spokesperson Jason Abrams said: “At this time, in coordination with the Coast Guard, we will not be closing any bridges on the Connecticut Coast Line during the tournament.”
The statement is a shift from a plan previously circulating among members of the boating community. That proposal outlined possible hourslong closures of several movable railroad bridges on the Connecticut shoreline on dates tied to World Cup matches in Foxborough, Massachusetts.
The affected bridges would have included the spans over the Connecticut River, Niantic River, Shaw’s Cove, Thames River and Mystic River.
The proposal had raised alarms among charter boat operators, harbor masters and marine industry leaders, who warned the closures could disrupt navigation during the height of the summer season, create safety risks on crowded waterways and hurt businesses that depend on fishing and recreational boating.
Amtrak also said is “exploring all options to move travelers safely and reliably during the World Cup with minimal interruption and inconvenience to local communities, visitors, and other stakeholders and travelers.”
Fans are expected to use rail service along the Northeast Corridor to travel to matches in the Northeast, including in the Boston area, where passengers would use connecting service to reach the stadium in Foxborough.
Earlier Tuesday, the U.S. Coast Guard told NBC Connecticut it was reviewing Amtrak’s request related to the bridge proposal.
“The Coast Guard has received Amtrak’s request for the bridge closures and are reviewing it to reach a final decision. When that decision is made, the Coast Guard will work with Amtrak. We are also aware of the mariners and boating communities concerns regarding this,” the Coast Guard had said.
It was not immediately clear whether Amtrak had formally withdrawn that request or whether the rail operator’s latest statement means the bridge closures are no longer under consideration.
NBC Connecticut reached out to the Coast Guard to request additional information.
-
North Carolina6 minutes ago
NC State’s 2026 Atlantic hurricane forecast calls for an average season with 12 to 15 named storms
-
North Dakota12 minutes agoValue of North Dakota oil rises as Iran war upends markets – KVRR Local News
-
Ohio18 minutes agoNWSL announces expansion to Columbus, Ohio
-
Oklahoma24 minutes ago
Woman rescued from Oklahoma City house fire; no injuries reported
-
Oregon30 minutes agoWine Enthusiast names 2 Oregon sparkling wines among best
-
Pennsylvania36 minutes agoDavid A. Mansel, West Middlesex, PA
-
Rhode Island42 minutes agoRhode Island shifts its primary to Wednesday, Sept. 9, easing a Labor Day poll setup crunch
-
South-Carolina48 minutes agoFormer SC Lt. Gov. André Bauer nominated to be next US Ambassador to Belize
