The FBI quietly issued guidance this past spring lifting a categorical hiring ban on applicants who had previously engaged in prostitution, and said that it would instead consider the context of the behaviour in at least some cases. The bureau made a similar change regarding bestiality.
"We did not want to punish victims of bestiality, victims who were trafficked. We did not want to make it an automatic disqualification for the FBI to consider you,” Patel said.
If thay was what they meant they should have written about ‘not excluding victims of’ instead of ‘consider the context’.
I’m skeptical about the phrasing “engaged in prostitution”, I think the beastiality bit is a smokescreen to distract from that part. I don’t think the fbi has had to turn down a lot of former hookers, I think they’ve had to turn down lot of men who have “engaged with prostitutes” from the other end of the transaction. They are removing this restriction so they can hire more sexual predators.
(inb4 “not all men who hire prostitutes are sexual predators”. I know. I’m a sex worker. The ones Donald Trump and Kash Patel want to hire are going to be sexual predators).
I am willing to put money down that similar things happened on Epstein island, his texas (I think it was texas) ranch, and in a certain florida golf club
If that was actually the intent they could have avoided all the drama by adding broader language to the entire document allowing exceptions on a case by case basis for prohibited behaviors which occurred while the applicant was a victim of trafficking and coercion. This sounds a lot more like an excuse made after the fact to defend an indefensible decision.
I really hope someone in congress follows up on this and demands to know how many agents were hired with these behaviors on their record, and of those how many had been identified as victims of trafficking. Make them go on record with it.
If thay was what they meant they should have written about ‘not excluding victims of’ instead of ‘consider the context’.
Thank you for the link!
I’m skeptical about the phrasing “engaged in prostitution”, I think the beastiality bit is a smokescreen to distract from that part. I don’t think the fbi has had to turn down a lot of former hookers, I think they’ve had to turn down lot of men who have “engaged with prostitutes” from the other end of the transaction. They are removing this restriction so they can hire more sexual predators.
(inb4 “not all men who hire prostitutes are sexual predators”. I know. I’m a sex worker. The ones Donald Trump and Kash Patel want to hire are going to be sexual predators).
Uhh…who exactly are the “victims” in a bestiality incident? 🤨
The israeli iof used dogs to rape palestinians.
I am willing to put money down that similar things happened on Epstein island, his texas (I think it was texas) ranch, and in a certain florida golf club
Often prostitutes who are only doing it to survive or women who are being trafficked.
Those women are not applying to be in the FBI though, which is why I doubt that is who Patel is claiming are being kept from becoming agents.
Well yeah. Just because you were abused as a pup, does not mean you can’t be a police dog. What justice is that?
If that was actually the intent they could have avoided all the drama by adding broader language to the entire document allowing exceptions on a case by case basis for prohibited behaviors which occurred while the applicant was a victim of trafficking and coercion. This sounds a lot more like an excuse made after the fact to defend an indefensible decision.
I really hope someone in congress follows up on this and demands to know how many agents were hired with these behaviors on their record, and of those how many had been identified as victims of trafficking. Make them go on record with it.