Differential Standards of Evidence: Trump-Russia Collusion Was "The Only Explanation" of the Evidence in the Steele Dossier; But There Is "No Evidence" of Biden Influence-Peddling

Trump was declared obviously guilty by the progressive establishment on the basis of the laughable Steel Dossier. Which is to say: on the basis of wildly implausible hearsay evidence. 

   There is, however, substantial credible evidence of Biden influence-peddling. Layer after layer of foreign bank accounts, Biden lying about his knowledge of his son's business dealings, Biden's own words on video about the Ukrainian prosecutor, his calls to Hunter during business meetings, etc. Influence-peddling isn't the only possible explanation, of course. But the available lines of evidence can be plausible drawn so as to converge on that hypothesis. Enough so as to warrant an investigation--obviously.

   However, in this case, the progressive elites have declared that there is "no evidence" implicating Biden--which is obviously false.

   House Republicans have admitted--what is clearly true--that currently there isn't enough evidence to justify impeachment. Dems seized on this as an excuse to stop the inquiry. This suggests that they think that you already have to have proven your conclusion before you begin to inquire. Which, to be fair, is similar to the way progressives tend to reason...except for the 'proven' part...