Re the Obama donor fraud, a reader writes:

Obama appears to take the position that receiving illegal donations is not illegal, only giving them is.
Isn’t there such a thing as accessory liability or conspiracy?
It reminds me of Bill Clinton. Lewinsky was having sexual relations with him, but he was not having them with her.

On the other hand, the money’s out of your account by the end of the day, so Obama’s credit card transactions reach “completion” (as Ken Starr would say) a lot more reliably than Bill Clinton ever did.

But never mind “accessory”, isn’t this what the Senator’s fellow Chicagoan, Patrick Fitzgerald, would in other circumstances be prosecuting as racketeering?