FBI Director Kash Patel wrote that the drinking incidents were “not representative of my usual conduct.”

FBI Director Kash Patel wrote that the drinking incidents — including an arrest for public urination — were not his usual behavior.

  • JackDark
    22010·
    3 months ago

    This was over 20 years ago. Let’s focus on his modern fuck-ups instead when he was barely of drinking age.

      • Marty_TF@lemmy.zip
        1055·
        3 months ago

        agree with jack, the headline is massively misleading.

        headline should have made it obvious that this is something from the past, showing that his current drunkenness is a fundamental problem of his, as it is rooted in a pattern

        • homes@piefed.worldOPEnglish
          254·
          3 months ago

          agree with jack, the headline is massively misleading.

          I don’t disagree that the title is misleading, but that wasn’t Jack’s complaint. And I didn’t change the article’s original title, particularly because I crossposted this to several comms, some of which have rules against this.

          • Scirocco
            112·
            3 months ago

            All y’all saying the right things

            This is old. Who hasn’t peed in a bush once, or thrice, etc

            But most of us aren’t foolish enough to do so in a visible/observable way, and most of us aren’t currently part of the Drunkard’s Parade that’s fuckin up the country with great enthusiasm and effect.

              • TropicalDingdong
                81·
                3 months ago

                This is the kind of shit which makes it hard to take liberal news sources seriously.

                Genuinely, if you have a problem with some one who caught a ticket for public urination in their, honestly whenever, I don’t want to be politically aligned with you.

                It’s a stupid form of puritanical politics I want nothing to do with. The guy is a piece of shit now, that is what matters.

              • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                71·
                3 months ago

                Imma be real with you. If you find a candidate for that role who claims not to have had such minor indiscretions in their past: that person is lying. Whether that makes them a good or bad candidate for the FBI is left as an exercise for the reader.

                • homes@piefed.worldOPEnglish
                  15·
                  3 months ago

                  Defending Kash Patel with some hypothetical isn’t a strong argument, especially, because, ya know, Kash Patel, who would make a good or bad candidate is, in fact, up to congress.

              • TrickDacy
                3·
                3 months ago

                The problem isn’t that he ever did this, the problem is that it was entirely believable that he would do it today (because he’s a careless idiot, not a college student who would later stop such shenanigans). But I agree with the person saying it’s old news and not really worth bringing up right now especially given the misleading title.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      117·
      3 months ago

      It demonstrates a lifetime pattern of irresponsible drinking, which is relevant to the discussion. This isn’t a new thing, something that happened from the pressures of his new job, etc. This is a lifelong problem that has been ignored, and is now a National Security Threat.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      74·
      3 months ago

      Oh, we are absolutely focused on his current f***-ups. And we also look to the past to see if it’s been happening for a long time, which it has.

      I mean look, if you’ve been an alcoholic for decades and now you try to lie to people and say that you don’t have a problem with booze, people are going to go to your old drunken Facebook posts, point them out, and laugh at your lying ass. That’s just common sense my friend.

      • D_C@sh.itjust.works
        71·
        3 months ago

        You are allowed to swear here on the internet, but if you truly don’t want to say fuck-ups then just don’t say it. Or change it to from fuck-ups to foul-ups, mess ups, or something.

        See, I’m petty, so self censoring just makes me not want to agree with you.
        However, fucks sake, I do agree with you…but begrudgingly. FUCK UPS.

        Your one self censorship had led to me writing fuck-ups four times.

        • chaitae3
          14·
          3 months ago

          I use f***up instead of the alternatives when I want to say fuckup, but I don’t like reading the word and I don’t want to force it on others. It has nothing to do with censorship. Everyone knows what I’m referring to. Some people just don’t like swear words, they’re often from academic backgrounds.

          • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            2·
            3 months ago

            This is confusing to me, which I understand is a me problem not a you problem, I just don’t understand why you wouldn’t use a different word when you say you don’t like reading the word. Saying he’s incompetent, careless, reckless, irresponsible; I don’t know what word would make the most sense but I feel like using a curse word is generally a crutch anyway. I still use them but if I didn’t like reading them I wouldn’t use the crutch. I expect academics have a preference against it because they have a more broad range of conversational words they choose from more so than finding it offensive. I have a really hard time believing an educated adult finds the word fuck offensive. I would believe people find it lazy or juvenile and would make them less likely to engage and biases their opinion of who they are speaking with, even if unintentionally, but self censoring does nothing to change that.

  • the_riviera_kidEnglish
    443·
    3 months ago

    As much as I hate this shitty fuck, public urination is a stupid “crime”. No one and nothing is hurt by it, instead lets focus on actual horrible shit hes done.

    • homes@piefed.worldOPEnglish
      1419·
      3 months ago

      it’s wasn’t “just” public urination, he’d been drinking beforehand, which shows that it’s relevant behavior. and it wasn’t just a single incident, it was two, the previous when he was underage:

      During an earlier incident in 2001, Patel wrote that he was arrested for public intoxication for drinking underage as a college student at the University of Richmond in Virginia. Patel helped run the Richmond Rowdies, a student fan group, and attended a home basketball game to help lead cheers. In his letter, Patel wrote that he was escorted out of the arena by a school officer due to excessive cheering.

      “Upon exiting the arena,” he wrote, “the officer placed me under arrest for public intoxication, as I was not yet of 21 years of age.”

      despite your attempts to downplay the issue, this shows that not only did Patel have a drinking problem from an early age, but it was serious enough that it got him into legal trouble before he was even of legal drinking age-- demonstrating a serious pattern of behavior that would have disqualified anyone else from the role of FBI director.

      • Windex007
        203·
        3 months ago

        If you want to show a pattern, you have to show a PATTERN.

        This is a data point, not a particularly good one.

        The guy is a giant POS, for a hundred thousand reasons more salient than this.

        If the guy was doing a great job, I wouldn’t give a shit if he was loaded 24x7.

        Edit:

        If sobriety was a reasonable indicator of competence and capacity Utah would be the capital of the planet.

        • northface@lemmy.ml
          1·
          3 months ago

          Hey, he did a great job cheering for the basketball team but apparently that was deemed too “excessive” for the officer…

          Maybe this point in history is the beginning of the villain origin story behind him ending up as FBI chief, wanting to exact revenge on that specific officer.

      • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        122·
        3 months ago

        Here’s the thing. I don’t actually give a fuck if he pissed in public, cheered so loud he got kicked out of a game, or if he’s even struggling with addiction of any sort.

        None of that actually matters. The only thing that I give a shit about is the horrors he’s used the agency to commit. And pearl clutching about him being an addict like its some sort of irredeemable moral failure is some weak-ass shit that excuses the real issue, the fascist actions of the agency.

        Now, I recognize that America can’t actually prosecute him for doing fascist shit, as that would mean that weaponizing state-run police forces against minority groups and political dissidents is wrong and America cannot weather that sort of ruling.

        So instead I guess we gotta do this capital C Conservative bullshit.

        I bet he doesn’t even pray to the right God!! Is he faithful to his wife?? If he drinks, he might also… GAMBLE!!! Has anyone looked into that?

      • Dozzi92
        111·
        3 months ago

        Listen, I’m confident half of Lemmy has done this. And I was an idiot as a kid, but I grew up. Unless he was also the director of the FBI them, or in route to it other than through the passage of time, it’s pointless to bring up.

        I appreciate your distaste for him. I’ve got it too. This ain’t it though.

      • TrickDacy
        3·
        3 months ago

        this shows that not only did Patel have a drinking problem from an early age, but it was serious enough that it got him into legal trouble before he was even of legal drinking age

        Would’ve been good to post it with this framing. Probably would’ve gotten less pushback.

  • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
    211·
    3 months ago

    This is nothing. Completely irrelevant. He was 25 at the time, barely an adult.
    I’m 70 and I still whip out my dick in public regularly.
    That doesn’t detract in any way from my authority as chancellor of Germany.

  • BygoneNeutrino
    17·
    3 months ago

    I believe they need to start randomly drug testing politicians and public officials. They should be held to the same standards as the 30% of the workforce that are legally required to be part of the government’s drug-free workplace program.

    If the person manufacturing their toilet paper isn’t allowed to smoke weed or take drugs, they shouldn’t be allowed to either. Since the head of the FBI is undoubtedly a sensitive safety position, they shouldn’t even be allowed to take prescription controlled substances.

  • FreddiesLantern@leminal.space
    13·
    3 months ago

    The thing that pisses (heh) me off about this is, is that we’re talking about Crash mcgoogly eyes here takin a leak. Like we’re still living 20 years ago where this would have been a big scandal.

    Meanwhile the US still has a sun downing pedoffender in the Oval Office who’s getting blackmailed by Israel to fuck up this planet and life on it for generations to come.

    Don’t get me wrong, Krash ain’t any better and deserves what’s coming to him. But there’s bigger fish to fry front and center instead of this incompetent fool.

  • Swemg
    91·
    3 months ago

    Yeah because taking a piss when you need is so fucking awful. The only thing wrong about that if shops says no to use their bathroom or/and because there’s no/not enough clean secure free public bathroom. Basic needs of life.

    Dude is a fucktard that should at least not be there tho

  • dizzle18@lemmy.zip
    7·
    3 months ago

    Now now, let’s be fair. He’s not a drunk anymore. Thanks to the massive amount of cocaine he snorts on a daily basis, he is now completely immune to the effects of alcohol.