“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.
“We have great canines, but we’re not going to disqualify them,” said Patel.
This is the type of shit that would be written for a South Park episode.
South America get it right patriot
Jesus, is this what even qualifies as a distraction now? If gas prices keep going up Kash may end up sucking off a llama in front of Congress.
I would feel sorry and embarrassed for the llama.
This hasn’t been in the news (I’ve seldom seen this in reputable places other than Wired), so it’s an ineffective distraction if so.
Imagine Kash’s eyeballs! I would feel really sorry for the llama.
Fuck, these people are weird.
The following post didn’t make much sense until I saw this one further down the feed.
Thanks, OP, for keeping me sufficiently aware of the insanity to understand the memes.
but they are only inside you on friday night because thats date night.
“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?”
The lunatics have taken over the asylum long ago.
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.
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.
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
I wonder if they are looking at furries.
are those the reptiles i heard so much about?
deleted by creator
It kind of looks like an X with stars.
Or an escalation from the Epstein files. They have gotten all the underage rape they want, now they want to normalize beastiality.
They like dogs because the oldest ones are only 15.
excellent point. A tie in with the epstein files would explain this. If they were fucking kids at an industrial scale I bet they had animals too. So some rich bastards fucked some animals and now they want that decriminalized. Finally this makes sense.
When I first herd about the files, this was my exact thought. Some of the videos Ive been subjected to as an admin of furry stuff… Ain’t no regular person got the funds to support that bad behavior.
There are ghetto (KY trailer park dog sex rings) cases, but anything larger than a dog… There is an industry. That’s why rich people go to horse races, they are shopping.
This has become more culture war bullshit. People don’t genuinely care except that it’s a political football. Like, I’m sure if they stopped and thought about it, they could work up some tears, but that’s just not the part of their brain that is activated 24/7.
How do you start a fight between Kash Patel and JD Vance?
Or the weirdest Eiffel Tower.
No…I suppose it’s my fault for having eyes…
They seem like the Cleveland steamer type of guys
damn, I’m not into dogs or couches and thats even turning me on. Thats a tight couch.
/s
Its hard to understand why they would do this. Some high muckety muck must have hit bestiality (I’m sure they prefer “zoophilia”) on their polygraph, or else its a opener/stage setter to ease a broader category of crimes, probably pedophilia and rape.
But no one can claim the GOP doesn’t love animals anymore. A Lot. Patels claim that this is aimed at protecting sexual assault vicitims is nonsensical. They could carve out a law specifically for that use case but they didnt. And the FBI pushing a law specifically for an exceedingly rare outcome for victims is out of pattern. Its not about victims, its to protect perpetrators-- as is usual for republicans in the US.
Its hard to understand why they would do this. Some high muckety muck must have hit bestiality (I’m sure they prefer “zoophilia”) on their polygraph
Wasn’t one of the potential identities of the mysterious “Bubba” that Trump was rumored to have blown a horse?
As weird as it sounds, I assumed there was some logic to this, and there was at least one case where someone had been the victim of sexual abuse and was forced to engage in bestiality. Then someone with half a brain realised that such a victim had no repulsive proclivities, so shouldn’t be excluded as a candidate on that basis.
The mere mention of the topic encourages irrational discourse.
They could have let in those people by adding the word “willingly”. They changed this rule to start letting in the more violent people they’ll need for the next stage of the reich.
Why do I get the impression some second rate LLM scraped references to "fucking the dog’ and turned it into official FBI policy?
I think it’s really just as simple as Kash Patel likes doggie dicks. It’s not rocket science.
I think it’s really just as simple as Kash Patel likes doggie dicks. It’s not red rocket science.
FTFY
The answer he was getting to is just as crazy. There were so many trafficked victims who were also forced into beastiality that ALSO want to be in the FBI there grew a need to update the policy. Like…what?
He can’t give out FBI jobs to his fraternity alumni because they all had to fuck a pig as part of the initiation.
Yeah, they could have let victims in without letting abusers in, by simply adding the word “willingly”. They did it this way though, specifically so they could let in the abusers for the reich they have planned.
The applicant pool is so narrow we had to consider this limitation. It’s sad applicants may have been forced to perform those acts either way though.
Because they’re only accepting applications from creeps they know.
I deleted this part of my post…I can’t help but think this is one guy who wasn’t ever part of trafficking.
Another comment connected dots for me, and consistent with: ‘No more walking on eggshells’: Hegseth vows to lift guardrails on military hazing, harassment
This is the pro-hazing administration, and maybe animal raping is part of some of their ‘good old boy’ hazing?
Obviously not sure, but it’s at least a theory that has some rationale that otherwise seems impossibly pointless to change.
I actually don’t find it far fetched that people who were victimized may themselves want to prevent that from happening to others.
Me either, just that this specific item is so prevelant that we are having a public conversation around it. But also…I would have bias if this was my story which should preclude me from service. There is a specific person(s) that was part of the mass hiring recently that makes this current news is my guess. There is a name here.
If a woman who was forced into it by a gang wants to join the FBI to take these people down to keep other girls and women from having the same fate, why would you deny her?
Under the law, we do not criminalize or hold people to actions taken under duress. You can keep the policy and just qualify the action to having been done willfully. You don’t need to allow abusers in to open the door for victims.
And an abuse victim shouldn’t have ever been charged with it either.
Correct.
Ok? Do you not understand the policy change? You are under the impression that willful beastiality is now allowed in the FBI? If you believe that, why do you believe that? Are you ok with having unreliable information?
He just said that the policy disallowed the fucking dogs who had been victimized. Are you expecting sensibility on these policies? Are you for real?
Yes I believe 1000% that whatever stupid excuse he gave for this policy change, it will be used primarily to put more unqualified, criminal, deviants into positions of federal authority. That seems to be this administration’s bread and butter. Look at ICE, look at several of Trumps cabinet picks and AG picks apart from his own adjudication for rape and association with Epstein. Do you think that the Patel FBI who protects Trump and all the other Epstein abusers has high moral standards for the quality of its hirees? Come on.
Dude, don’t live your life like this. Stop believing every hyperbolic headline the media comes up with. The original policy was dumb and it’s been corrected. Victims of coercion should not be disqualified from the FBI because the question being asked isn’t nuanced enough.
Because that’s a strawman argument & doesn’t happen in reality.
You seem to know so much about it, are you an FBI recruiter or do you work with victims of human trafficking? Because unless you’ve done at least one of those things, I can’t see how you would have any knowledge from which to make such an assertion.
Giving fascists the benefit of the doubt is stupid & I refuse to do so. If Kash Patel told me the fucking sky was blue, I’d go outside to check.
So no, I don’t fucking believe them, and you shouldn’t either if you have more than two braincells to rub together. What I do know is there is at least one white supremacist group & one really nasty college club that are both reported to use bestiality as initiation rites to use the threat of blackmail to maintain control over their members. The only victims here in those cases are the animals.
Yes, I do believe you are that easily manipulated.
Fuck off, loser.
Hr is trying to say people who fucked animals during hazing rituals are victims.
I feel like the framing of whether they are victims or not is kinda irrelevant. I just don’t want people who won’t say no to fucking animals just to get into a frat to have any kind of authority.
You know what, I particularly don’t want people who are willing to admit to fucking an animal during a job interview to work.
Not just at the FBI, kinda anywhere.
But if they’re not busy working they might be busy fucking animals.
Like how I don’t mind when trump plays a shit load of
goodgolf.Personally I could put them to work. My definition of work is quite liberal and can definitely fall under a human rights violation at its most sadistic.
Golf right? Bad golf at that. Bummer of a typo.
My swipe keyboard failed me yet again.
I swear my pixel 9 has a bad digitizer.
They could have just added the word “willingly” to the rule. They didn’t, because they’re trying to hire some fucked up people for the next stage of their reich.
Yes, people who get hazed are victims of abuse. You can be both an abuser and a victim.
I was sitting here wondering why there would be such a wide spread issue such that they would move to change the rules instead of just covering up some isolated incident.
I didn’t think of hazing as a possibility, but that totally tracks and just reiterates how totally screwed up their candidate pool is…
