Why is 'Obamarama' hiding his light under a bushel?

There is a tendency, supported by recent political history, to believe that ex-Presidents of the USA tend to sink gratefully into semi-retirement when their term ends and let the 'kids in the playground' carry on fighting.  True, Jimmy Carter lobs the odd shell onto the battlefield but it's usually a damp squib and nobody pays it any more attention than when he was actually, and uselessly, in the job.  The rest simply fade away and tend either to their golf game or their roses!

But that, I suspect, does not suit 'Ol' Big Ears' who has an ego to match his ears!  He also has a burning socialist crusade to pursue and complying with traditional mores is really not in his 'revolutionary' code.  And, of course, he is young and fit and golf can only occupy part of his time.  But the absolute clincher is that he detests Trump with a venom!  So all of that might explain why he appeared last week at the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference to give a speech.  Even more extraordinary, the word went out before the meeting to all attendees that no report must be made of what the ex-President actually said!

Now, it is an exceedingly rare occurrence for a politician of any sort to make a speech and tell everyone not to repeat a word of it!  Of course, as Ms. Monica Showalter writes at The American Thinker, it could just have been the organisers of the conference acting on their own initiative, well, anything is possible!  However, there is another factor which has come to light recently and that is the re-emergence of Eric Holder as Obama's 'bag-carrier'.  This disgusting parody of an Attorney General is a menace and the thought of him and Obama back hand-in-hand is exceedingly worrying. 

 

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

Obama, Holder, and the entire SJW movement are on track to be the rebirth of an American/Western version of Mao’s Red Guard of the mid 1960s. They can't help it as it is a Leftist defect.

[Bob]

Sometimes I wonder if the American Paranoiac Thinker is serious or just having fun with the readership. Obama had nothing to do with sports except golf, pickup basketball and his annual NCAA (college basketball) playoff predictions, which were highly publicized every season he was in office.

The Sloan Sports Analytics Conference isn't just about sports. If you read carefully you'll notice it's also about analytics. If you check into who else spoke there, you'll notice some prominent Republicans like Ted Olson. You might also notice Marie Donoghue, Global Business and Content Strategy person for ESPN. ESPN sponsors the event, and it's just possible the corporation doesn't want to let everyone know what they're planning. There are representatives from several other corporations that might discuss proprietary information:

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/current/2018-featured-speakers/

But you never know, maybe it's another red plot.

[David Duff]

Thanks, Bob, so, nothing to see here, move along!

[JK]

Jes' asking generally Bob but you reckon as they're "talkin' analytics" that it might just be possible Mueller may be in possession of information which might be seen to be oh I dunno, "inconvenient" mebbe?

Lately I've begun to harbor the idea that if there were any actual collusion charges under consideration an obvious "snitch-to-turn" would be just that sorta person; analytically speaking of course.

Social media concerns (Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In for example) obviously accepted monies from the Russians with the expressed motive of "sowing discord in the electorate."

Don't reckon it's just possible that the next batch of indictments might sport the name of one Mark Zuckerberg?

[Timbo]

I'll get the popcorn.

[AussieD]

I'll get the popcorn.

Get some for me as well Timbo. Could be a fascinating show.

[Bob]

David,

I admitted it might be a commie plot.

JK,

Well, Mueller got another guilty plea from a Trump insider, campaign staffer Rick Gates. One of the charges was conspiracy against the United States. That's definitely inconvenient for him. Mueller is up to 19 indictments and 5 guilty pleas now, but who's counting?

[JK]

You got Bob one of them extry-large bandannas you've seen those "guys-in-da-hood" wear? Duct tape of course will do in a pinch as, of course I wouldn't wish Bob, your jaw to clack off the linoleum risking injury so I'll suggest you take whatever few moments before proceeding to hear me out.

***

Okay I expect your jawbone's secured to your ears?

I'll lay out Bob first what's likely to be the worstest jaw-dropper you're likely to be hit with so just in case I'm correct you can loosen your binds.

- #1 - I'm reading every doggone thing and paying extreme attention to detail of each and every indictment as it hits the DoJ's website press-releases. (Now Bob I'll expect you're not gonna be insisting your healthcare insurance company come after me to cover your out-of-pockets?)

But do Bob please, exercise - as I'm pretty certain you've considered I, must've in past performances doing however you've settled on whatever my past adventures probably entailed - your noodle.

Think about it Bob - you recall that link from Five Thirty-Eight I placed for your benefit whichin which, the participants hadn't yet been "educated" by, among others Adam Schiff that, The only possible explanation for how Trump managed to kick Hillary's ass win the election had to've been "with the direct help of Buddy Vlad"?

Then the media went into afterburners with, "Trump Colluded with the Rooskies!"?

And only now some 14 months later of the media's constant haranguing The Rooskies The Rooskies! the only evidence we've been accommodated/granted with is that, "The Russians spent maybe a couple $100K [& mostly after the election] *sowing discord* ... Say What! (Hillary and the DNC by comparison meanwhile spending some approximately $1B and the Trump effort somewhere in the neighborhood of half of what Hillary spent - And Americans, we're given to accept as having come down off Mount Sinai "do everything better than those primitives").

So what to make of that?

Obviously the Russians must've purchased American expertise.

And where are we Americans given to understand that expertise came from?

Facebook!

Connect the dots Bob.

[Bob]

JK,

I'm not assuming anything and am following the story as it unwinds. You're wrong about the Russian contributions only amounting to $100K. According to the Mueller indictment of 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies, millions were spent over about a decade. Read the indictment again. A summary is here:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/16/russians-interfered-2016-presidential-election-favor-donald-trump-and-other-key-discoveries-special/345861002/

Expenditures included money for rallies, other propaganda operations and campaign contributions. Clinton lost because she was a lousy candidate until proven otherwise.

[JK]

Reckon I'll wait until after the next election Bob, "I'll have more flexibility then."