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...
It is so basic that it is meaningless then to learn much from it. You leave out vast differences when trying to make the point that me may learn something from it?