ABSTRACT: Today, we talk about Erin Kenny’s trick-turning, as well as the bribery allegations Mike Galardi leveled against Thom Reilly, some smoking initiatives on the ballot and Dina Titus’ campaign boo-boo. Along the way, we we even play defense lawyer.

Well, there you have it folks: If strip club mogul Mike Galardi is to be believed, former Clark County Commissioner Erin Kenny is a real-life whore, not just a political one.

Why? Galardi testified that Kenny — in the words of the staid Review-Journal — “performed oral sex” on him six times while she was taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform other favors from behind the commission dais.

Ouch, baby. Very ouch.

It appears that blowjobs are, as prosecutors have alleged, the currency of corruption in the G-sting trial, a perfect plotline in Las Vegas’ real-life soap opera. (Ex-Commissioner Dario Herrera was alleged to have had more than his share, too.)

With God and the federal government having conspired to wipe New Orleans off the map, G-sting just may help Las Vegas rocket into place as The Most Corrupt City in America.

But is Galardi to be believed? It’s a legitimate question after Monday’s testimony, in which he claims his bagman (former Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone) dropped off a $5,000 bribe with Clark County Manager Thom Reilly.

Frankly, we don’t believe it. We know Reilly, and we cannot imagine him taking a bribe. But don’t go with our considerable gut on this. Check the rest of the evidence:

— Reilly has been in close contact with the FBI since the G-sting matter came to light, and no agent has ever interviewed him about the allegation. If the government thought it was legitimate, would prosecutors not have investigated?

— Reilly performed no service for Galardi, and probably couldn’t have done so under any circumstances. While Galardi wanted to annex his Jaguar’s strip club into the city of Las Vegas (a proposal seriously advanced by Mayor Oscar Goodman, a recipient of Galardi campaign cash), Reilly says the commission opposed it. They feared Goodman’s ultimate goal was to annex the Strip, and they probably weren’t wrong.

— Galardi’s testimony has been inconsistent. He’s said things on the stand that he’s never even told his own lawyers, much less the government.

So what’s going on here? The perfect defense lawyer storm, we think. Follow our logic with this one, as we make pretend closing arguments to the jury.

“Ladies and gentlemen, there are two, and only two, possibilities here. One, Mike Galardi is telling the truth. In that event, my clients are guilty.

“But consider this: If Galardi is telling the truth, then he also bribed Thom Reilly. And if that’s true, why has the government not lifted a single finger to investigate him? Why have they focused exclusively on my clients? Is it because they want to mount politicians’ heads on their walls?

“Even if Galardi is telling only some of the truth, the government has clearly shown it’s capable of discerning what is true, and what is false. They think Dario Herrera and Mary Kincaid Chauncey are guilty, and Reilly is not. But what if they’re wrong?

“And that brings us to the second possibility, ladies and gentlemen, which is that Galardi is lying, 100 percent of the time. That means Reilly is innocent, and so are my clients.

“They can’t have it both ways, folks. They’ve either conducted a one-sided, highly selective investigation, or they’ve hitched their wagon to a lame horse that’s led them into a circle of lies so complete that not even their own witness can find his way out.

“Either way, there’s plenty of reasonable doubt.”

Holes? Sure there are. But it’s still an argument that might persuade a juror or two. And that’s all you need in a criminal trial.

We feel the sorriest for Reilly. There is no way he can prove definitively that he didn’t take Galardi’s money, although every indication is against it. The transaction was supposedly 100 percent cash, which can be untraceable, even to trained forensic accountants, in an amount as small as $5,000. No matter what he says, or doesn’t say, some will believe that he took the cash.

And that is too bad. Because the crisis of confidence in government created by G-sting is bad enough without taking out innocent bystanders, too.

• So it looks like voters just hate smoking all the way around. According to the Review-Journal’s polling, they favor a pair of anti-smoking ballot initiatives by margins of between 62 percent and 57 percent, and they’re against legalizing one ounce of marijuana by 56 percent to 34 percent.

Maybe tobacco companies should start giving out blow jobs to voters?

In the election fray, it seems voters are slightly more enamored with the fascist Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, which they like 63 percent to 33 percent, with 4 percent undecided. This would ban smoking almost everywhere, including in bars. It’s being pushed by a variety of do-gooder health zealots.

Meanwhile, gambling and convenience stores are pushing an alternative, which would essentially keep the status quo. It’s passing 57 percent to 35 percent, with 8 percent undecided. It’s called the Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Secondhand Smoke Act.

While we prefer leaving smoking regulations up to individual proprietors, the latter initiative would do the least amount of damage to property rights and the freedom to enjoy a smoke. But, if the election goes the same way as the polling, the initiative with the highest win percentage wins, which means you can forget bringing your cigarettes into the local P.T.’s Pub.

We’d say more, but it’s time for our smoke break.

• Ah, that’s better. Oh, we forgot to mention that the marijuana initiative appears to be going down (heh, heh, heh) 56 percent to 34 percent with 10 percent undecided. Metro Police Lt. Stan Olsen says voters are sick of attempts to legalize drugs. We think the alternative — a police state in which even small amounts of drugs can land you in jail — is worse, but that’s just us. We’re in the 34 percent.

• Give state Sen. Bob Beers credit for a great sense of humor: His “apology” to U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons for that April Fool’s Day press release was a classic “fuck you.” The gist: Gee, Jim, we’re sure sorry for saying you want to help taxpayers. Color us red-faced.

Beers has managed to extend this thing for several news cycles now, and something tells us we’ll still be talking about come primary election day if he has his way.

• Whoops. State Sen. Dina Titus didn’t just make a mistake when she put a developer on a list of “pay to play” companies that got something in return for campaign contributions to her gubernatorial rival, Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson. She gave Gibson a perfect issue.

Not only did Gibson, along with the rest of the Henderson council, turn down the contributor’s request for a zone change, the guy (Rick Smith, president of RDS Associates) says he didn’t regret his contribution, and he still respects Gibson, despite the negative outcome.

Ouch. Watch for this guy to be on TV soon, despite Titus’ apology.

We’re seeing a striking resurgence of the Mr. Magoo effect that saved President George W. Bush from so many hassles in his two campaigns, and it’s something Titus has got to fix, forthwith.

Consider: Gibson took more than $500,000 to represent Nevada Power at a time when local communities were struggling with higher rates, and it’s Titus who found herself on the defensive for a long-ago contribution from evil energy giant Enron. Gibson still has more than a dozen legitimate “pay to play” cases in his contribution reports, but it’s Titus on the defensive for someone’s failure to do their homework.

It’s not a fatal error. But Titus can’t afford many missteps like this in the future. Aggressive is good. Aggressive with a bad aim adds up to friendly fire, which as any Army Ranger worth his salt will tell you, isn’t very friendly at all.