It's hard to say. It's like that thread; nothing he's saying in the first part is really all that wrong, it's just that he's taking the dumbest possible conclusion from it. Yes, after the lawsuit, Vic's reputation will still be harmed. Yes, the lawsuit forced him to acknowledge all the morally dubious things he's done under oath. Yes, when it's done, even if he wins, he'll still have the accusations of being a pedophile rapist on top of the stuff he'll have admitted to: the infidelity, the prostitute, trying to hook up with twins.
What he's leaving out is that the alternative is leaving the claims of being a pedophile rapist out there without defending himself, which is almost certainly worse. On top of that, if he wins, at least he can get some financial relief to make up for the damage to reputation...which is exactly the fucking point of filing a defamation lawsuit!
So, his points aren't entirely wrong, it's just that his conclusions make absolutely no sense based off of the point he himself raised.