“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.
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.
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.