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.
It’s not minimizing it — with President Arthur not being qualified to be in office. That’s just as serious as the allegations with Obama. They’re both just as serious. That’s why the comparisons are valid — one very serious matter (of President Arthur) to another very serious matter (of Obama)...