Well, I have a correction to make. Yesterday, I wrote that the focus of Katie Britt’s sex trafficking story was kidnapped and forced into prostitution at the age of 16. That was wrong. The person was 12, just a child at the time. She escaped when she was 16. (Even after all these years of MAGA, I STILL can’t believe how badly people can suck.) MyBaconPress regrets the error…

After being called out for misrepresenting, Britt went on Fox Not-News to defend her statement. She pretended people thought she said the person was a woman at the time. That wasn’t the issue. She pretended to be disgusted people would try to shut down her tale of sex trafficking. Nobody was doing that. She did NOT address the fact that the victim who actually suffered the event, Karla Jacinto, wasn’t happy Britt told the story during the rebuttal. She said, “I hardly ever cooperate with politicians, because it seems to me that they only want an image. They only want a photo — and that to me is not fair.”

It’s important to note, Britt took office in 2023. She mentioned that Biden had taken 94 “executive actions” in his first hundred days and then mentioned a couple that affected the border, trying to leave the impression that all 94 actions were border-related. They were not. Twelve of them were border related. Ten of the twelve reversed actions taken by 45. So the rest was just a bit of conservative misrepresentation to inflame people’s minds. (Hey, it’s what they do.)

After misrepresenting Biden’s actions at the border, Britt said she took a different path “after she took office.” She went down to the border and met Jacinto, who told her the story. Then, with no segue, she said, “We wouldn’t be OK with this happening in a third-world country. This is the United States of America. And it’s past time we start acting like it. President Biden’s border crisis is a disgrace,” Britt said. “It’s despicable, and it’s almost entirely preventable.”

So…did Britt SAY, exactly, that the trafficking occurred under Biden’s watch and in America? No. She just implied it so heavily the idea couldn’t be missed, AND she buried those pesky details – which make such a difference – so deeply it took people a little while to dig them up.

I’ll tell you this: I have a rule about cons: Their tales of terror and woe are NEVER ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’ There is ALWAYS some bit left out that should be included or some bit tossed in that should not. It’s how good lies are built and the cons are VERY skilled liars. They have to be. It’s all they’ve got…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also yesterday, I wrote about the case against Fani Willis and how the cons are trying to protect their Precious by eliminating the prosecutor for “impropriety.” (The actual focus was the GOP controlled legislature giving Ashleigh Merchant a bully pulpit to make whatever case she felt like making with little to no pushback.)

I don’t think they can show any impropriety. The actual charge is that Willis hiring Wade violated a Georgia nepotism law. ALL cons will tell you, Wade was not qualified for the job. Of course, they’ll also tell you that Trump won in 2020. As we’ve seen – and see constantly, cons lie. Wade is an established lawyer with a thriving law practice. He also sits as an associate municipal court judge and a state court judge. Does he have any experience prosecuting criminal ex-Presidents? No. Who does? This is all new territory because we’ve never had such a corrupt and outright criminal ex-President as we have in trump.

But after claiming some professional impropriety, the cons have focused, almost exclusively, on revealing salacious details of the lover’s affair. They have shown, over and over, that a dude took his girl on a couple of trips – and that he used money he earned by working to pay for it. Isn’t that how ALL dudes take their lovers on trips? Paying with money they work for? (Yeah, I’m setting aside criminals and criminal activity for the moment.) The idea, as nearly as I can tell, is to suggest that these two had sex – so they hate trump. That’s dumb. Most people hate trump whether they’re having sex or not.

There are other problems with Merchant’s filing. For example, it didn’t include any factual support for key claims. It was all innuendo. That’s weird enough, but here’s a quote from a Politico article called ‘A Reality Check on the Fani Willis Scandal:’
“The motion may also have violated an important ethical rule that requires lawyers to disclose controlling law that is at odds with any position that they are advocating in the case. In particular, Roman’s filing claims that Willis and Wade may have violated the honest-services and RICO statutes because they “personally benefited from an undisclosed conflict of interest,” but that theory of criminal liability was foreclosed by the Supreme Court nearly 15 years ago. The lawyers who wrote that language either did not know that it was wrong (ethically fine, perhaps, but embarrassing) or refused to level with the court about it (not fine at all and deeply ironic).”

There was an opportunity for a Georgia Democrat to question Merchant during the spectacle. He showed that the primary case she cited in her filing (Whitworth vs State) didn’t support her claim. She even admitted as much, after a bit of verbal sparring. He also made the case that impropriety refers to profiting in ways you normally wouldn’t by getting the win in a case or by getting some piece of the case to work better to get the prosecution, like getting a bonus for flipping a witness or some such. Wade is being paid whether the State wins or loses. That’s not impropriety. Prosecutors get paid to prosecute.

I actually think the weakest point in Willis’ defense is Wade, himself. In court, it came out that Wade was trying to hide some income from his soon-to-be-ex-wife. During the Georgia Senate dog-and pony, Merchant said she thought one of the reasons the legal firm Wade had with lead witness Terrance Bradley came to an end because Wade insisted on using his own trust accounts rather than the official trust accounts of the firm. So Wade appears to be maybe a little shady with money, personally. None of that indicates that he has done anything improper during the case, though.

I’ll tell you this: I hope the case proceeds. I really hate the idea of justice being derailed because two human beings exercised their infatuation with each other for a short time…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sometimes, I get a little pushback when I decry Daylight Saving Time. Oh, hey, you disagree? Okay. That’s easy. In view of current issues, this one is very low-level. The position pro-DST people take, though, is that they get “more daytime.” No you don’t. There are 24 hours in a day. Period. The reason you get “more sunshine” is because the Earth/Sun relationship changed to Summer mode. We get more sun.

What YOU get is the opportunity to go to bed while the sun is still up and being forced to use a little more power in the morning when most of us have to get up and go to work. Less of an issue, I guess, if you’re retired or don’t have a job.

A law passed in the Senate is trying to set the clocks to Daylight Saving permanently. It has not progressed in the House. As it happens, we’ve tried that. It was (hyperbole alert) carnage on the roadways and death to schoolkids. The program was implemented on a two year test basis but cancelled after less than one year because of the increase in deaths. That’s true.

I would be okay with leaving the clocks alone but I could only support Standard Time as the permanent choice. Fear not, my DST lovers. You’d still get the same 24 hours in each and every day. It’s the way science works…