GDog34

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@TravDoesCrypto @pagelsfolife @Rach4Patriarchy Okay, now we’ve finally backed this thing up to the question that actually matters 😂 What evidence is there that Tyler was a patsy in the first place?

I feel like we’re going in circles, here!

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@TravDoesCrypto @pagelsfolife @Rach4Patriarchy There’s a distinction worth making here: alleging involvement by people within a federal agency is not the same as alleging that the people at the top personally knew about it or authorized it. If the “patsy” theory requires that connection, what evidence establishes it?

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@TravDoesCrypto @pagelsfolife @Rach4Patriarchy Okay, now we’ve finally backed this thing up to the question that actually matters 😂 What evidence is there that Tyler was a patsy in the first place?

I feel like we’re going in circles, here! lol

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@TravDoesCrypto @pagelsfolife @Rach4Patriarchy I follow your logic. But that still assumes that alleged involvement somewhere within the FBI would mean the people at the very top knew about it or authorized it. That’s the part I’m questioning. Does one necessarily prove the other?

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

I understand your logic. But you’re assuming that if someone believes there was FBI involvement, it necessarily means Kash, Dan and Trump personally knew about it or authorized it. That’s the part I’m questioning. An institution is a lot bigger than the three people at the top. Why does one automatically prove the other?

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

Happy Birthday Gael 🎉🎂🎈

[US Open Tennis @usopen]

Ageless La Monf ♾️

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

The top seed @ The Open with the McEnroe brothers! ❤️it!

[US Open Tennis @usopen]

No. 1 seed Alexander Zverev caps the day on Ashe vs Lorenzo Sonego ��

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

Coco looks great! 💙
Love Chris Eubanks interviews lol

[US Open Tennis @usopen]

A convincing start from Coco!

[US Open Tennis @usopen]

SHOWTIME 🤩

[US Open Tennis @usopen]

Coco begins her campaign!

She faces Sonmez in R1 on Ashe.

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@usopen Nothing like a night match on Ashe. This is when the U.S. Open really starts feeling like the U.S. Open. 🎾

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@signalfire41415 @TravDoesCrypto @IanCarrollShow @KanekoaTheGreat I think I like you, @signalfire41415 🤔 you may be one to follow. 😉

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@signalfire41415 @TravDoesCrypto @IanCarrollShow @KanekoaTheGreat That’s an impressive amount of vocabulary for a basic personal insult. 😂

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@TravDoesCrypto @IanCarrollShow @KanekoaTheGreat Exactly. That was the only distinction I was trying to make. We’re on the same page. Thank you, babe. 😘

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

@TravDoesCrypto @IanCarrollShow @KanekoaTheGreat You’re a nut! lol 😂 😘

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that once the investigators released the scene, the school could certainly decide to remediate it or even change its appearance. My only distinction is that OSHA doesn’t actually require 8–10 inches of soil to be removed. The OSHA standard requires appropriate protection and decontamination based on the type and extent of contamination. The 8–10 inches in that post is described as a commonly referenced remediation practice, not an OSHA requirement. That’s the distinction I was making.

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

Okay, I understand your point better now. You’re separating the investigation from what happened after the scene was released. You’re saying investigators completed their crime-scene process and released it, and then OSHA/biohazard considerations became relevant to the cleanup. I agree those are two separate phases.

I think Ian’s point is slightly different, though. He’s questioning whether the physical scene should have been altered that quickly in the first place, because a FARO scan documents the scene but doesn’t preserve every type of physical or trace evidence. So the real question isn’t OSHA….it’s whether investigators had actually collected everything potentially evidentiary before the scene was released and altered. That’s the part I think would have to be established independently.

[GDog34 @GDog34zp]

Just to be clear…

I understand the OSHA reference as it relates to the workers actually handling and cleaning blood-contaminated material. That absolutely can fall under the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. But OSHA doesn’t establish that the area had to be removed or paved because students were returning Monday or might be traumatized by seeing it. That standard addresses occupational exposure to blood, not student psychological welfare. And OSHA isn’t what determines whether a homicide scene has been sufficiently processed or whether physical evidence should remain preserved….that’s a separate forensic/law-enforcement issue. I think those are being conflated here.