There are differences in the details about how one comes to determine how one is not eligible — but the core issue of being eligible or not eligible — is the same.
For example, if one goes to the Supreme Court with these particular “differences” and then they simply decide to not hear the case — you’ve then got the same situation — in which one still “suspects” that a person is not eligible, but you don’t have the proof (in that there was no decision verifying that kind of determination of non-eligibility).
The core issue remains the same — even if the details can vary...
These are not simple differencs in details but major differences in the amount of accusations, and even as to what is contested and what is not.
As I said you seem to want to paint the results of the Arthur case as being something that we should all learn a lesson from but then you want to only concentrate on the two cases from the perspective that you choose to. You ignore the vast differences.
It seems as if you are trying to minimize the seriousness of this issue with your selective perspective on this.