Earlier this week, Politico published an excerpt from former interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile where she said she found a document that showed a deal between failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Brazile wrote that the agreement “specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.”

NBC News has published this memo, which shows the control given to Hillary and her campaign. This includes hiring of DNC employees acceptable to the fundraising committee Hillary for America (HFA).

So Brazile promised Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that she would investigate any primary rigging against him for Hillary.

In Brazile’s excerpt, she said that a candidate’s team will take over the party once “the party chooses the nominee.” She wrote (emphasis mine):

If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

The joint fundraising agreement (JFA) between Amy Dacey, former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook, Hillary’s campaign manager, brought together the DNC, Hillary Victory Fund, and HFA. It basically treated Hillary as the 2016 Democrat presidential candidate.

The memo states that HFA would “raise and invest funds into the DNC via the Victory” and in exchange, HFA required “the appropriate influence over the financial, strategic, and operational use of these JFA-raised funds.”

The DNC would have the final decision on hirings, but only between candidates that HFA deemed acceptable by HFA:

Did you catch that last part? Yeah: “The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.” This is odd because the agreement said the items between the parties will not “violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process” and all of these activities listed would only “be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary.”

The DNC also said it would ask a “State Party to become a participant in the Victory Fund” if asked by said State Party:

But Brazile’s excerpt in the Politico article claimed that the states only “kept 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding.”

The Clinton campaign then agreed to make a $1.2 million payment to the DNC, which was in debt at the time along with a monthly allowance. The agreement said that the DNC would spend this money on “data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations as directed by (HFA).” The DNC said it would hold responsibility for these special projects, but “HFA will determine (in consultation with the DNC) the Special Project’s scope, strategy, staffing, budget, and manner of execution.”

Of course, Hillary’s supporters have come out and whined that Sanders’ campaign also signed a JFA with the DNC. But as Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out, IT’S NOT THE SAME THING. ABC News correctly stated that the language differs between the two agreements, especially when it comes to giving power to the campaign to have a say in hiring and the budget.