The mainstream media has bombarded Americans for a year with stories about the alleged "collusion" between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government, which supposedly gave hacked emails to WikiLeaks in a coordinated effort to destroy Hillary Clinton in return for some unknown favor.

After eight months of government leaks, including from top intelligence agencies, and countless investigations from the press and Democrats in Congress, we still have no evidence of any collusion. There's evidence the Russian government wanted Donald Trump to win the election. There's evidence some in the Trump camp, notably Donald Trump Jr., were at least willing to consider working with the Russian government. There's even evidence Trump had been working on a business deal in Russia while running for president. But after the thousands of hours of investigating, there's still no evidence of collusion, and WikiLeaks continues to say (as it has all along) that it did not receive the Democratic National Committee emails it released from the Russians.

There is, however, a massive story involving a 2016 presidential candidate who violated federal law that has plenty of supporting evidence: The FBI's botched (perhaps deliberately) investigation of Clinton's illegal use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state. (And let's not forget what started that investigation in the first place: the countless lies told by the Obama administration in its attempt to cover up the 2012 Benghazi disaster).

While most in the media continue to work tirelessly to pursue the next Russia-related leak, it has largely ignored the FBI's investigation of Clinton, which now looks more and more like it was an utterly corrupt endeavor from the start.

On Aug. 30, in what is truly one of the most spectacular letters written in modern history by sitting members of Congress, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who are hardly Trump sycophants, published what should be an Earth-shattering letter they wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray. In the letter, Grassley and Graham, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said they uncovered evidence that shows former FBI Director James Comey made up his mind about the Clinton investigation months before interviewing key witnesses in the case, including Clinton herself.

"According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton," Grassley and Graham wrote. "That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts."

On Sept. 7, Graham took his claims a step further, telling Fox News' Catherine Herridge that he wants Comey to once again appear before Congress under oath to explain the new revelations.

"This doesn't add up, and I smell a rat here," Graham said.

Throw in the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, and it's a foul stench indeed.

Imagine for a minute that you're a judge presiding over a case in which a person is suspected of committing murder. You know there's all sorts of evidence proving a crime was committed (a person died and it wasn't suicide) and that the chief suspect in the present case was involved. Heck, you even know for sure that the suspect pulled the trigger. The only question is whether the suspect had the required intent to commit a crime, as opposed to engaging in self-defense or something similar (remember that this was the primary reason Comey chose not to recommend a prosecution, according to his own statements).

Then the prosecutor in the case, despite having overwhelming evidence the suspect killed the victim, decides not to pursue charges. Later, you find out the prosecutor's boss was meeting with the suspect's rich and powerful spouse in secret and that the prosecutor determined the intent requirement had not been met before meeting with 17 key suspects in the case, including the suspect himself! And to make matters even worse, when the prosecutor did meet with the key witnesses, he offered many of them immunity. This is exactly what happened in the Clinton investigation, and in virtually any other venue, it wouldn't be tolerated. Put simply, this is beyond outrageous.

There's far more evidence in the Clinton investigation of some grand conspiracy to help a candidate win the 2016 election than there is of anything related to Trump and Russia.

I can only hope the media and Congress work as hard as they have been on the Russia question to examine why Comey would do this and whether there was some sort of collusion between top officials involved in the case, including Comey, Lynch, and others.

This isn't just about ensuring justice is served in this one case. If the American people can't trust the FBI and Congress to hold our politicians accountable for violating the law, then the entire notion of a government "for the people" will be put at risk.

Justin Haskins (@JustinTHaskins) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an executive editor at The Heartland Institute.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.