A full review of the real Russian connection does not include a single member of President Trump’s administration or family members. Factual collusion lies with Hillary Clinton, but the media continues to ignore Clinton collusion with Russians.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said last week many of Hillary Clinton’s donations were made by Russian connections. He based his comments on a leaked email from her campaign concerning a story later dismissed by the media.

Speaking on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends,” Fitton said, “There were connections between all this Russian-connected money, $145 million generally, $500,000 specifically to Bill Clinton from a Russian-connected firm that was pushing Uranium One. Evidently, someone in the media not only connected it to Uranium One, but saw other Russian interests being advanced by Mrs. Clinton, such as this really hard-core opposition to any new sanctions against Russia over its alleged murder of a human rights-related lawyer.”

The original story concerning this escapade was never fully explored by any of the top media organizations. But Politifact, quoting figures from Oilprice.com, stated that the international mining company, whose headquarters are in Canada, had U.S. mines that produced about 11 percent of the country’s uranium production in 2014.

The leaked email was sent by a Clinton spokesperson. In part it said that ” … with the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link Hillary Rodham Clinton to a $500,000 speech that Bill Clinton gave in Moscow.”

Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade explained how it was part of a series of examples of how Clinton and former Secretary of State John Kerry were trying to end the Magnitsky Act, a set of sanctions stemming from the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was killed after testifying against Russian interests in a fraud case.

Nothing that has been unearthed by the Trump-hating media comes close to these allegations against Hillary Clinton and her cronies. In the 13-month ongoing hunt for evidence of Trump administration collusion, not a single shred of solid evidence has been found.

Ironically, the bill’s name resurfaced in the last month during the investigation of Donald Trump Jr.’s meetings with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya. She represents clients fighting back against the sanctions.

Furthermore, Kilmeade said that “Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin were on the same side. But if this was linked to a $500,000 speech, how would that look to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy?”

It was never followed up by a mainstream media hell bent on implicating Trump with the Russians. Meanwhile, Judicial Watch’s Fitton said such a revelation would “look tough.”

But is this a reach? Fitton put it in perspective. “You have to wonder how many other donations were made by Russian connection entities we don’t know about. You may recall the Clinton Foundation had to fix its reports to expose or highlight contributions that it had promise to publicize, but it hadn’t publicized.”

So how can such an intensive investigation of Trump collusion overlook such a blatant act against the national security of the United States? It is clearly a huge conflict of interest with Clinton and her husband getting a half a million dollars directly from the Russians while she was secretary of state.

Fitton continued: “We were astonished when we saw that the State Department, we got the document, approved this ethics process that allowed this speech. Why would the Clinton State Department allow Hillary Clinton’s husband to get a half a million dollars from the Russian-connected entity?”

Why indeed.

One can only imagine the uproar in the media if Trump’s secretary of state’s wife got a half a million dollars from a foreign government while that official was in office. The revelation would rattle Washington to its knees.

Clearly Clinton was advocating on behalf of Russian interests not only on Uranium One, which saw the Russians get 20 percent of our uranium operations, but then pushed hard for the Russians against the sanctions. It is borderline treason.

In 2010, Clinton headed one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One. It had operations in several states, and President Barack Obama himself had final say in the matter.

Politifact reported that even though Russia controls Uranium One, it supposedly can’t export uranium from the United States. It is more likely interested in the company’s assets in Kazakhstan. That country produces the bulk of the world’s uranium.

When Bill Clinton delivered his $500,000 speech, other dignitaries such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell were also invited to speak at Renaissance Capital events. But none of these world leaders were married to the then-secretary of state of the United States.

The question is, where is the media uproar on such a well-documented situation? Are those organizations that vie for the public trust allowed to merely ignore such brazen political and national security issues?