You seem to intentionally concentrate on what suits you in comparing the Arthur case to the Obama case. There are a vast amount of differences involving these two cases.
You said — “You seem to intentionally concentrate on what suits you in comparing the Arthur case to the Obama case. There are a vast amount of differences involving these two cases.”
I just look at it in the basic terms of the Constitutional requirements for being President and allegations (for both of them) that they are not qualified — and then — it not being proven (at least not at that time...).
That’s a basic picture for me...