Redskins Owner Dan Synder Realizes He Was Going To Lose His Defamation Lawsuit Badly, Drops It
from the that's-what-we-call-a-punt dept
Well, Verve lets us know that Snyder has finally dropped the lawsuit, most likely because someone finally explained to him that he had almost no chance of winning, and not only would he lose in court, but the longer the case went on, the worse the public relations nightmare would be. It's pretty funny that he's claiming that he's doing this "to focus on the coming football season and the business at hand." Yeah, and not losing massively in court, for which you might have had to pay Washington City Paper's legal fees as well.
Amusingly, Snyder also declares -- against pretty much all evidence -- that he's been "vindicated" in filing the lawsuit, because Washington City Paper:
"admitted that certain assertions contained in the article that are the subject of the lawsuit were, in fact, unintended by the defendants to be read literally as true."Um. That's not vindication of the lawsuit. That's WCP explaining what everyone else in the world already knew: the article was satire, designed to make fun of Snyder. Saying that the points weren't all meant to be read literally as true isn't an admission. It's pointing out that Snyder is apparently unable to comprehend basic satire.
WCP, for its part, says that it's happy the case has been dismissed, and while it could use DC anti-SLAPP laws to go after legal fees, it'd rather the case just be over. Of course, one good thing about all this happening in Washington DC? It's really helped some folks in Congress realize that we need a federal anti-SLAPP law.