Authors Respectable Lawyer
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
I have some wild updates on yesterday's thread about @mattgaetz's floor speech about "antifa agitators" that may end up with the facial recognition company suing the Washington Times, which would be funny...
This morning, Buzzfeed interviewed XRVision, the facial recognition company mentioned in the Washington Times article who supposedly identified antifa at the capitol. They’re mad, because as I discussed yesterday, they actually identified neo-nazis.
And now there are attorneys issuing a demand for correction and apology, which is the first step in a defamation lawsuit.
But the Washington Times didn’t issue a correction or apology. Instead, this morning it first tried to change the headline from “antifa” to “extremists.”
By noon, the Washington Times just deleted the article.
JOURNALISTS: Let me help you debunk the lies in the @mattgaetz floor speech about a \u201cfacial recognition company\u201d discovering antifa agitators. It all comes from a fake news article from the notorious Washington Times. I will break it all down for you\u2026https://t.co/alc73605Nm
— Respectable Lawyer (@RespectableLaw) January 7, 2021
This morning, Buzzfeed interviewed XRVision, the facial recognition company mentioned in the Washington Times article who supposedly identified antifa at the capitol. They’re mad, because as I discussed yesterday, they actually identified neo-nazis.
And now there are attorneys issuing a demand for correction and apology, which is the first step in a defamation lawsuit.

But the Washington Times didn’t issue a correction or apology. Instead, this morning it first tried to change the headline from “antifa” to “extremists.”
So @WashTimes quietly changed the headline of its false & viral story (with no correction) after XRVision, the facial recognition firm, said it had actually identified neo-nazis \u2014 not antifa \u2014 storming the Capitol. https://t.co/5bCRshgoB1 pic.twitter.com/Z0a5ZQ3Chk
— Jesselyn Cook (@JessReports) January 7, 2021
By noon, the Washington Times just deleted the article.
