You are unable to measure the amount of influence Rezko gained from his illegal activities vs. from his legal activities.

Let me say this clearly. Barack Obama got a direct benefit from the increased influence and access that Rezko had. Rezko got that increased influence and access because of his criminal activities. Thus, Obama gained a benefit from Rezko's crime. That is undeniable, no matter how you try to wriggle away from it. I am not "trying" to get Rezko's dirt on Obama. Obama did that all by himself.

I am not accusing Barack Obama of committing a crime. I am saying what anyone not blinded by his Messianic Glow can see – he made out because his friend, political enabler, and money man was a criminal.

Uh, and how is that not GbA? GbA isn't a legal term, you nitwit, it's a term of logic/rhetoric. You are trying to get some of Rezko's (please learn how to spell the guy's name) dirt on Obama, but it is Rezko's alone. Unless you can prove that Obama abetted or encouraged R's illegal actions, you are merely playing scumball politics (as usual).

"He is certainly guilty of using the increased advantage Resko gained because of his criminal activities to get ahead in his political career and to get himself a really nice house. Those are now undeniable, given Resko’s conviction."

O's house had nothing to do with R's crimes. If it did, O would be on trial, too.