“Why would you even get into bestiality?” he asked. “We’re not into bestiality,” said Patel.
In a further exchange, Patel explained to Senator John Kennedy, the Louisiana Republican, that previously, regulations had barred anyone who engaged in bestiality “on either side of it.”
“Either side of what, the bestiality?” asked Kennedy. “So you disqualified the animal?”
“We have great canines, but we’re not going to disqualify them,” said Patel.
Is this real life or a god damn SNL skit? It reads like an SNL skit.
Scene opens on a group of new recruits wearing FBI uniforms.
Camera pans out, it’s an animal shelter.
Camera pans out further, the man speaking is Kash Patel in a gimp suit.
Here at the “Friends of Beastiality Institute”, we take not asking or telling very seriously, and my thing is definitely bleeeeep*
Scene cuts to disclaimer of no animals being hurt.
Disclaimer ends. As we return to the scene with the recruits, we see Kash zipping up his gimp suit.
“And that, my friends, was consensual.”
Cut to dog wearing a bee suit and smoking a cigarette…
“live from New York, Kash fucks dogs!”
Space Ghost: “So how was it working with Lassie?”
Triumph the Insult Dog: “If by worked with you mean ‘banged up the ass,’ it was great.”
SG: “Whoa. You can say that on TV? Huh, well I, too, once banged a dog up the a-”
technical difficulties message
SG: “Well how was I supposed to know I couldn’t say it?!”
… Moltar appears on-screen
“I thought I recognized you! We both were foced to hench for an obscure Canadian comedy group in 1997! How’s it meltin’, yo?”
those arent exact quotes btw. you can find video of the whole thing. patel explains that his team told him that there have been applicants that were sex trafficked and forced to do some things that might count as sexual acts with animals. apparently that what he meant by being on the other side of beastialty.
It is an exact quote. https://x.com/atrupar/status/2099864817901125967 (a clip of the hearing, which I’m sure you’ve set up to redirect to your preferred Nitter instance)
you’re talking about a different part of the oversight hearing the article also covers
Yeah the actual reasoning given is, reasonable. Assuming they’re not lying (which is a massive ask for this Admin). And they’re communication about it is horrendous, but that’s to be expected from these dipshits. They’re not in these positions because they’re actually good at their job.
If he was telling the truth, they would have changed the rule by adding the word “willingly”. However, he was just lying to cover for the fact that they want to allow abusers of animals and women into the FBI.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum long ago.
I wonder if they are looking at furries.
are those the reptiles i heard so much about?