Who was the old bloke overseeing the ‘interrogation’ of Kash Patel? Totally useless in my humble opinion.
You need someone like our very own Aussie, Penny Wong from the senate leading the charge. Alas, I can’t find the vids, but she is formidable, in the most vicious way possible. 
The hearing was being chaired by Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He’s the president pro tempore (which is pronounced “pro tem” for reasons that are a mystery to me) of the Senate, which means he’s the chairman whenever the Vice President (who’s nominally the president of the Senate but rarely ever actually shows up unless they need him to cast a tiebreaking vote) isn’t present. By convention, the job goes to the longest-tenured senator of the majority party - and Grassley turns 93 tomorrow and has been in the Senate since 1981.
You may know him for tweeting in leetspeek like he’s a 14-year-old AOL user in 1998 and being extremely passionate about his collection of vintage vacuum cleaners.
He lives in a world where he’s known to get so blackout drunk at work that FBI agents had to break down his office door in case he was dead or needed medical care. And there’s no indication he’s improved, so I don’t believe he knows where he is or what is going on literally most of the time
At least he has the excuse of substance abuse. His boss never knows and evidently is like that naturally.
The CIA had the men who stare at goats.
FBI: Hold my beer!
Literally a kakistocracy.
We have an administration with an uncountable number of drunkards and sexual predators, many who are both
This whole exchange highlights exactly why the belligerent, in-your-face attitude that the whole Trump administration has adopted is such a problem.
Patel might actually have a point here. If someone, as a child, was trafficked and forced to engage in bestiality at gun point, then that person would be as much a victim as the animal was. But Patel is unable to explain that in calm and clear terms, because he’s fundamentally incapable of being calm and clear under any circumstances. He’s so focussed on scoring points against the Democratic members of this board that he entirely misses the legitimate target he thinks he’s aiming at.
Of course, the number of people who would fall under this situation is pretty darn small, which is where this conversation probably should have gone. Why make these changes if there’s almost no one affected by them?
I guess we now know it was not a joke and also exactly who said, “But you screw one…!”
“No son, we’re going to walk down there… and fuck them all.”
Another possibility…Patel, in one of his blackout drunk episodes himself fucked a dog or a goat and realized that if that ever became public, he could be immediately dismissed from his cushy job for bestiality.*
Or, what someone said above…he doesn’t know what it actually means. That’s definitely possible.
*Incompetence and substance abuse being no barrier, of course.
"And when we’re done, your Uncle Bobby can have them.’
It seems to me that Patel is concerned that there might be kids that were forced to engage in beastiality, and that those kids shouldn’t be barred from a later career at the FBI.
What is the likelihood of that?? Who (I know now, who) even thinks of that???
Or, given Patel’s generally fratboy-ish brain: guys who were goaded into it in college, esp. by their frat brothers, or as part of a hazing ritual. But, as you note, I have to believe that the number of people would be exceptionally small.
I thought Kavanaugh was the beer guy? Kash always struck me as more of tequila shots fellow.
A University of WA frat had a thing with sheep. Could these guys now be part of the FBI? 
That doesn’t make sense.
The actual policy as divulged does not specify that the applicant was coerced into the act, i.e. if they engaged in such acts deliberately of their own will, they are still covered under the new policy.
Also, apparently, it includes not just sexual acts but acts of animal cruelty. So, if some psychopath tortured cats and other small animals before they were 18, that’s apparently A-OK under the new guidelines.
Clearly, he was deflecting by focusing on the vanishingly small (nonexistent?) number of such cases rather than the vastly larger (and known to exist) pool of candidates who kicked dogs, fucked sheep, and other things that should rightly disqualify them from getting positions with the FBI but won’t automatically disqualify them now.
Apparently the policy as relates to animals only covers up to age 18, so presumably would not cover most people engaging in hazing rituals. But I’m sure if they had an extreme shortage of psychopaths, they might lower their standards even more to cover them.
Maybe the googly eyes come from being repeatedly kicked in the balls with a hoof.
Bingo!
How does it not make sense? We know lots of kids are trafficked for sex, and making CSAM. It wouldn’t be that surprising if some subset of the abusers went a bit further, and added animal abuse on top of that.
It’s probably vanishingly rare, and of course Patel is only using that theoretical person as cover for hiring perverts, but he could have stayed calm and made this argument, if he wasn’t himself.