Haha! That was a trick question. The answer is easy: Lack of prosecution is an ethical standard--well, somtimes--for Dems, but not for GOPers.
Jonathan Turley explains how that works:
Ossoff said it is "not enough to say I wasn't prosecuted" and that there remains serious ethical violations. That is precisely what some of us have been arguing on the Biden influence peddling scheme. https://t.co/XlZcLZrLXd— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 29, 2020
You can read Turley's article if you're into liberal hypocrisy. Here's his intro from his blog:
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the media treatment of the Hunter Biden controversy in Ukraine. I continue to marvel at the non sequitur in the mantra that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing” in the contract. What does that mean? Is the sole measure whether the Ukrainians (or even the U.S.) would prosecute a contract as a crime? Wrongdoing would seem to cover any form of corruption or influence peddling — whether or not it constitutes a crime. The fact is that the payment of sweetheart deals to the spouses and siblings is common in both the Ukraine and the United States. Does that make it right? The suggestion is that there is nothing wrong with this contract.
Wrongdoing would seemingly include ethical violations and not just what Ukraine would prosecute as a crime (a curious standard for one of the most corrupt countries on Earth). Indeed, many of us have criticized Trump for sometimes suggesting that the criminal code as the measure of presidential conduct. With Biden, Democrats seem to be doing the same thing in dismissing any objections since “it is all perfectly legal.” If that is the case, then most of the criticism of Trump’s conduct can be dismissed as devoid of “evidence of wrongdoing.”