Yes, you missed that it wasn’t for the victims, they’re probably already covered for that. It was for people involved in bestiality in general.
While Patel characterized the change as nondiscriminatory toward victims, Durbin refuted the notion and claimed it was a way to protect those who engaged in bestiality.
“You dropped automatic disqualification for applicants who have been engaged in bestiality, not victims of bestiality, applicants who have engaged,” Durbin said to Patel.
Can you ELI5 how an automatic disqualifier based on a conviction that doesn’t account for whether or not someone is a victim doesn’t automatically disqualify those victims without just saying they’re “probably already covered”
Edit to add: I don’t see the relevance of what person C says if person A and B aren’t going to be taken at their word, either. Durbin’s words on the topic matter only as much as anyone else’s in a vacuum, and his claim as to what is and isn’t currently policy is as meaningless as anyone else’s if it’s unsubstantiated
Yes, you missed that it wasn’t for the victims, they’re probably already covered for that. It was for people involved in bestiality in general.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/15/kash-patel-fbi-hiring-policy-bestiality
I think Kash heard his bros talking about fucking lots of “bitches” and totally misunderstood.
Can you ELI5 how an automatic disqualifier based on a conviction that doesn’t account for whether or not someone is a victim doesn’t automatically disqualify those victims without just saying they’re “probably already covered”
Edit to add: I don’t see the relevance of what person C says if person A and B aren’t going to be taken at their word, either. Durbin’s words on the topic matter only as much as anyone else’s in a vacuum, and his claim as to what is and isn’t currently policy is as meaningless as anyone else’s if it’s unsubstantiated