So like, for real though, the justification for this was that there are people who are victims of trafficking that are forced into this, right?
At face value, that makes sense. I’m not sure whether every state that convicts for beastiality would also create exceptions for victims of trafficking who were forced into it, they certainly do not when it comes to other offenses.
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
I don’t think Kash is attending most interviews, and I while I use someone’s name as a reason to raise an eyebrow and look into something more than I typically would, I don’t base my reason for it being bad solely on the name of the person who did it.
So like, for real though, the justification for this was that there are people who are victims of trafficking that are forced into this, right?
At face value, that makes sense. I’m not sure whether every state that convicts for beastiality would also create exceptions for victims of trafficking who were forced into it, they certainly do not when it comes to other offenses.
Is there something I’ve missed?
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
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
I think Kash heard his bros talking about fucking lots of “bitches” and totally misunderstood.
You think that’s who Kash is hiring?
I don’t think Kash is attending most interviews, and I while I use someone’s name as a reason to raise an eyebrow and look into something more than I typically would, I don’t base my reason for it being bad solely on the name of the person who did it.