“The memorandum of understanding went on to detail a “set of protocols” to mitigate and indeed absolve Clinton of any conflicts, or even the appearance of conflicts. However, the MOU was simply a formality—a means to an end. Over time, Clinton repeatedly violated the spirit and terms of the agreement, primarily by concealing payments. The Clinton–Obama MOU should have been invalidated from the start. Two parties cannot agree to disregard laws like the conflict of interest and bribery statutes delineated in Title 18 of the U.S. criminal code. Signing such a document is unseemly at best and a political liability at worst.146 Furthermore, an MOU may not even be legally binding nor enforceable. This means that the Clinton–Obama MOU was basically a “gentleman’s” agreement—largely toothless.147
That may be the reason why President Obama never signed the document. Rather, Obama’s top advisor, Valerie Jarrett, signed the document in her capacity as co-chair of the transition team—a private, tax-exempt entity, or 501(c) (4). Another co-chair of the transition team was none other than Clinton-fixer John Podesta. Inexplicably, the MOU not only continues to protect Clinton from conflict of interest and bribery allegations to this day, but it has also allowed the Clintons to collect untold billions of dollars in speech payments and donations to their foundation. The MOU is at the heart of the Uranium One scandal, as it was repeatedly violated due to the concealment of foreign donors like Uranium One’s chairman Ian Telfer and others implicated in the deal. The fact that concealed Clinton donations were only disclosed years later (and only after they were discovered independently) demonstrates the MOU was essentially toothless. This is especially true given the fact there are over 1,000 undisclosed Clinton-affiliated donors.“
Comey recently testified to congress regarding FBI abuses in 2016 campaign. The key takeaways are that Comey provided few details that were not already known and appeared forgetful, replying ‘I don’t know,” “I can’t remember,” or “I don’t recall,” at least 236 times, according to the Judiciary committee.
1. Comey’s net worth skyrocketed over 4,000 percent after working for a major spy contractor who paid him $6.1 million in a single year.
As Deputy Attorney General, Comey’s net worth was $206,000 in 2003. Shortly before leaving the DOJ, Comey conveniently pushed for changes to the surveillance rules (resulting in a legal “loophole”) and then found a lofty position in 2005 at Lockheed Martin. Comey amassed well over $10 million before he returned to government service in 2013.
2. Comey favors spying on Americans and has advocated mass surveillance for many years.
In his 2003 Senate confirmation hearing, Comey lauded the controversial use of warrantless domestic surveillance. Comey has time and again praised intrusive legislation like the PATRIOT Act and FISA, which allow intelligence agencies to obtain, collect, and store private citizens’ data, ostensibly to protect against terrorists (2003, 2004, June 2005, July 2005, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017).
3. Mueller’s FBI granted Comey’s private-sector employer multiple hundred-million-dollar contracts, including a $1 billion contract that has been called a “boondoggle.”
These contracts included a $425 million program called Sentinel and a controversial $1 billion biometric surveillance program called the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system, which Lockheed developed using facial recognition technologies.
IBM protested the NGI award to Lockheed for undisclosed reasons and civil liberties groups have criticized it because the program compromises citizens’ privacy and is susceptible to a wide margin of error. Plagued by delays and cost overruns, numerous DOJ Inspector General audits criticized the Lockheed programs for their inestimable failures and the NGI program has been called “a $1 billion boondoggle.”
4. The section chief of the FBI’s surveillance unit warned Comey that warrantless spy programs are: (1.) a huge waste of time and money; (2.) ripe for potential abuses; and (3.)largely ineffective in catching terrorists. Comey ignored the warning and expanded the programs anyway.
In a 2018 interview, top-level FBI whistleblower Bassem Youssef emphasized that the expanded surveillance systems were vulnerable to severe abuse. He voiced these concerns to FBI Deputy Andrew McCabe in 2012, who attempted to silence criticisms of the programs and ignored Youssef’s warnings and recommendations. And when Youssef warned Comey in 2014 of potential system abuse, he was ignored yet again. Youssef also disclosed that only one terrorist plot was disrupted in the twelve years that his team conducted this surveillance.
5. Comey and Mueller have a long history of prosecutorial failures, missteps, and downright abuse.
In 2001, then-FBI Director Mueller and Comey aggressively targeted an innocent U.S. Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, for the anthrax scare. According to President Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Comey was “absolutely certain” that Hatfill was guilty of the anthrax letter scare. The FBI then used “bumper locking,” a type of surveillance using an ever-present spy van, to monitor Hatfill. One time, the van ran over Hatfill’s foot, for which he was fined. The FBI also leaked information to the press in an apparent smear campaign. Hatfill was eventually exonerated on Aug. 26, 2003, and received a taxpayer-funded settlement of nearly $6 million. Comey and Mueller have numerous similar stories of prosecutorial failures and manipulation, which are detailed extensively in my recent book, “Compromised.”
Bruner: “Mueller was only making $400,000– and I say only but that’s a lot of money to most Americans– before he became FBI Director. According to his most recent financial disclosure he made over $3.5 million in about a year. That’s a lot of money and a big increase.”
Host: “This is really interesting. I practiced law for many years and [Mueller’s] $400,000 is the kind of income a good lawyer can make. You can make that honestly practicing law. These multi-million dollar incomes, you don’t get that for practicing law. You get that for having connections. You get that for being a fixer.”