“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.
If you watch the full thing they removed the restrictions for vicims according to Patel. Apparently someone was forced to engage in such acts against their will.
Honestly the US is so crazily stupid now. And that cones from someone who lived through Brexit and Boris Johnson as prime minister of the UK.
We are living in the stupidest timeline.
Careful, there’s a 50/50 chance that every time somebody says that, the stupidest timeline gets stupider.
Maybe I shouldn’t have quoted it.
Nah, it’s the most corrupt & greedy timeline…maybe.
The stupid people in charge are a feature, not a bug.
I get that’s what he’s trying to say. But that still doesn’t make sense to me. Because if someone was trafficked and forced to engage in those acts against their will, wouldn’t that situation come up in whatever trial put that on their record? And if someone was in that circumstance, do they still get charged with beastiality despite the fact that it was completely non consensual on their part? That seems wrong to me. Especially if, as he also tried to imply, it happened when they were a minor. If that is the case, I think he should be pushing for the laws around that to get changed, rather than the FBI hiring guidelines.
But to me this whole thing reeks of a hastily thought up shitty excuse. Because even if it is actually the case, that minors who are trafficked and forced into beastiality against their will still face charges for it, how frequent is it that people in that very specific scenario are also actively applying to the FBI? And if it is one specific person they were trying to make exceptions for, why not make an exception specifically for that person instead of opening up the guidelines as a whole. It’s just so stupid and incompetent. But what else can you expect from Kash Patel.
Newsflash, there is a lot in this world that isn’t fair.
There are a lot of government requirements like these and they rarely allow for any considerations. It’s a yes or no, and the wrong answer is an instant failure with no recourse. There are plenty of other people applying without that disqualification. Whether it’s an excuse for their actual reasoning or not, it is a valid consideration that the current rules don’t allow for.
Ok hang on. I definitely understand that the world isn’t fair.
I’m not a lawyer. And I’m not really sure how to even go about looking this up, nor do I particularly want it in my search history. But are you saying that the current US law as it stands allows being convicted of beastiality simply by being a victim of force?
Because it’s not like they hook you up to a magic lie detector and ask if you’ve ever participated in beastiality. They are asking if you have been convicted of said crime. Which is something they can look up and verify. And I would assume said conviction would require a court case. With a decision by a judge or jury. And so during the case, if you make the argument that you were trafficked/forced into it you still face charges?
And if that isn’t how the law works, then we would be talking about cases where somebody was forced into that situation, but was unable to prove that they were forced in court, and were wrongfully convicted. Then we are talking about an exception to an exception. And that just seems insane. Especially with the fact that the guidelines change is so broad and sweeping, rather than as granularly specific as the case trying to be argued here.
Again, I’m not a lawyer, and certainly not well versed in the laws regarding beastiality. Maybe there’s something I’m just missing. But I don’t understand how you could be added to a registry, or have something put on your record without some sort of conviction. And I don’t understand how you can be convicted of something if you were a victim yourself, and being forced to do something, especially as a minor.
The change is just making a yes answer not an immediate disqualifier. Meaning it’s still a question, and could disqualify you, but now you can provide that context.
The system gets shit wrong all the time. People are convicted for stupid shit all the time. Texas famously just convicted a group of people recently for terrorism for being at an ICE protest and having Anti-fascist flyers.
Relying on the system to always have an authoritatively correct and accurate decision without any room for context is ridiculous, and that’s what the old policy was.
Oh good lord. That antifa conviction was not a “letter of the law” accident. It was the most intentional twisting of statute to go after maga’s “enemies” that we’ve seen yet.
As for the beastiality requirement, that could have been changed with the word “willingly”, without letting in whatever nasty boys ole’s toad eyes wants to let in.
Disclaimer: I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just trying to wrap my head around this.
I get that it shifts it from being an immediate disqualifier. But then we’re right back to the issue at the start. A “yes” to that question means there has been a conviction. And while yes, the system gets things wrong all the time, especially given the example you cite, why are they specifically making this carve out for beastiality? Like you said, people were wrongfully convicted of terrorism for attending protests. There are plenty of felony convictions that can be incorrect or unjustified or biased. And I’m assuming those felony convictions would also be an immediate disqualifier for employment at the FBI. So it’s really weird for them to act like beastiality is a unique charge where these sorts of things can happen . Which makes the whole excuse bullshit.
There’s a cognitive dissonance here that I just can’t explain away as anything other than just blatant excuses with no real basis. If the argument is that sometimes convictions can be wrong and there can be extenuating circumstances, then that should be applied wholesale. And there shouldn’t be any immediate disqualifiers without having a discussion with the candidate. If they’re willing to accept convictions for other crimes as gospel because the judgement came from the system, then the same should apply to beastiality.
The fact that this specific carve out is being made (I know that there are other guidelines being relaxed as well, but it’s not across the board, they are choosing a handful of specific things) really does just make it seem like no matter what justifications Patel provides he really just does support/like/excuse beastiality.
FBI background checks look into a lot more than just criminal records. A person doesn’t have to be convicted or even charged with something in order for it to disqualify them. Some things that aren’t even considered crimes can disqualify you. Having too much debt, being an alcoholic, having a family member with too much debt. Having a history of anything embarrassing that you could be blackmailed for. Et cetera.
They ask you questions about your past and strongly encourage you to tell the whole truth, then they interview people who know you in order to corroborate your telling of it. And since the job requires a TS clearance, you have to pass a polygraph test too in which they ask you questions specifically tailored to your past as it appears in the results of your background check.
It’s not a simple matter of going to the local police station and asking for your rap sheet the way civilian job interviewers do.
I get all of that. I’m just saying if we are attempting to steel man Patel’s argument. How would the concept of beastiality come up? If not through a conviction, or some sort of registry, do they specifically ask family/coworkers/acquaintances of the person applying whether they have reason to believe that person has had experiences with that in the past? Instead of just broadly asking for any information they should be concerned or informed about? I know personally, if I was privy to the information that someone went through that sort of thing, it certainly wouldn’t be top of the mind of things I should be sharing as part of a background check. I know not every body thinks the same way, but sharing that someone was the victim of a crime isn’t something that I would think is relevant unless specifically questioned about.
Do they expect to find proof of this occurring on social media? I guess one way would be news stories if someone comes forward to talk about their experience of being trafficked/forced into that sort of thing. It just seems like if this is something that occurred it would be a pretty private issue and not something that they would go around openly talking about to every one.
But like another commenter mentioned it would be much simpler to just add “willingly” to that guideline, in order to have the cut out they are looking for. And as fucked up as it is, wouldn’t someone being a victim of trafficking also be disqualifying? It would leave them open to blackmail/intimidation due to their trauma no?
The whole situation is just so strange to me, and the excuses given just really don’t add up. In another comment further down the chain I bring up the fact that it seems weird to have this unequal enforcement where for some reason, beastiality specifically is something that they are willing to be lenient on and hear people out but with the other guidelines not so much. And yes I know there are other guidelines that they also loosened, but it seems like they are just blindly throwing darts at a board with their guidelines to choose what to lighten up on instead of easing guidelines across the board. Or more concerningly, they have an oddly specific list of things that they think are acceptable.
One of the questions on the polygraph test is “Have you ever lied on a government form?” That’s kind of a catch-all because earlier in the process, they have applicants answer a long list of Y/N questions on the initial background screening form.
That combined with heightening stress levels by continually reminding the applicant of how seriously they take perjury, combined with basically a promise to dig up anything they aren’t forthcoming with, it’s pretty common for candidates to tell them all their secrets, because you have a better chance of passing the screening or getting a waiver if you’re honest and can demonstrate that it won’t be an issue for you.
Also, if it’s the kind of dark secret that everyone in a small town knows but no one in the next town over does, then yeah that kind of stuff can come up when they’re interviewing an applicant’s acquaintances.
I mean I’m not here to defend Kash Patel, I think he’s unqualified, incompetent, and wouldn’t pass a recruitment screening if he had applied for it instead of being appointed to the top post. He shouldn’t have passed his senate confirmation hearing, and I still don’t think he has a security clearance.
But of all the things we could be knocking him for, easing a restriction to enable a former victim of human trafficking to pursue her dream job of taking down human traffickers isn’t exactly something I can fault him for.
That is, if his story is true… on the other hand, it could just be a lie so that he can hire a college frat buddy whom he’s personally seen fucking a donkey or something like that. But I don’t see how we would ever know one way or the other…
It’s reported that Israel does this to prisoners.
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2026/6/9/shackled-bleeding-raped-palestinians-describe-abuse-in-israels-prisons
So they accommodated a very small minority of people? 🤔
Sounds woke
Kash Patel is implementing DEI at the FBI!
We have confirmed reports of the Israelis forcing Palestinians to do this shit right now. These aren’t hypotheticals.
A single person being outright denied without any consideration to context, like trafficked individuals forced to commit these acts against their will (the reason given for the change), is an injustice. Telling someone that they can’t even be considered because of trauma they had no control over is ridiculous.
Ok? I was just making a cheeky remark.
then they could have tailored the law to that use case and no one would have batted an eye at its implementation. But they chose not to go that route. They could also change this right now and they arent. So none of this is an accident.
I didn’t say it was right or wrong
I am not suggesting it was right or wrong. Just pointing out the contradiction in logic.
You mean they actually did something good for someon?
Why? They are going to torture and killnus all anyway.
They hire the animals like horses etc? I don’t believe this.