"Bolt from the blue"

I know Gill's columns have been even less coherent lately than in years past. But even when he appears to be "on" it has never been easy to know when he is being intentionally ironic.  In any case, I'm only sharing this to say that it's neat how they all never seem to have an "inkling at the time," about stuff like this.  Even in cases like below, when the circumstantial evidence Gill cites having witnessed appears, something inhibits professional political observers from getting the inkling.

It came as a bolt from the blue when Thomas pleaded guilty, and resigned as an at-large member of the council in 2007, because his vast popularity across racial lines had made him a hot favorite to succeed Ray Nagin as mayor in 2010.

Although I had no inkling at the time that he was another crooked politician, I was always mildly surprised, whenever I made a modest wager at the Fair Grounds and looked across at the big plungers of the $50 window, to see Thomas standing there at a time when his council salary was $43,000. He later blamed his downfall on gambling.

At least not, "at the time."  It's only after the fact that these inklings appear in print. Wonder why that is. Is it that difficult for the professional local politics observers to conclude that a local politician might be corrupt?  Maybe if it weren't such an off -the-wall concept it would take less time to figure out.