I just made up that name for the fallacy, but I'm wondering if there is a more common term for it. The fallacy is basically inferring from an inconclusive set of evidence to a particular explanation because that explanation happens to be a special interest of yours. For example,

There is no way a comedian known for playing the piano with his male organ became president of Ukraine without some hidden influence; therefore, the CIA installed him in the presidency.

This is the sort of reasoning often used by conspiracy theorists. One species of conspiracy theorists are focused on the misdeeds of the CIA, so everything that happens that is hard to explain must have the CIA behind it. Others are focused on racism, so everything bad that happens is blamed on racism.

• Question 1: Is there a common name for this fallacy, and if so, what is it?
• Question 2: How does one distinguish this fallacy from inferring to the best explanation (called "abduction" by some authors)?

In both the fallacy of the devil you know and abduction, the best explanation is just the explanation you pick because given your background and interests, explanations of that sort happen to seem plausible to you. How can they be differentiated, if at all?