back to deal with this latest clinton controversy. >> a u.s. drone strike mistakingly kills hostages held by al qaeda. >> as president and commander in chief, i take full responsibility for all of our counterterrorism operations and profoundly regret what happened. >> our sunday group weighs in on whether the counterterrorism strategy needs to be changed. and our power player of the week. dr. francis collins, head of the national institutes of health. >> we're the house of hope. this is where people come to when everything else has stopped working. >> all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. well it's the old adage, follow the money, in the case of hillary clinton who just launched her presidential campaign following the money has led to troubling questions. today we want to drill down into the controversy with peter swei sweitzer for his first live interview. brett has been leading the fox news reporting on the book and has the highlights. >> the dealings of bill and hillary clinton are what peter sweih sweitzer calls the clinton blur so interconnected that it's pretty easy to get lost. from lucrative reconstruction deals given to clinton friends and donors after the earthquake in haiti, to 500 and 750,000 speeches for bill clinton paid for by countries or foreign companies with some action or policy in front of his then secretary of state wife. to a major uranium mining deal for clinton friend finalized during a trip with former president clinton. >> soon after that bill clinton got a huge donation $31 million to his charitable foundation followed by a pledge to donate $100 million more. >> the company became uranium one and eventually sold to a russian company that is essentially controlled by vladimir putin. they now also control more than 20% of american uranium. officials with uranium one and investors who profited donated $140 million to the clinton foundation. but millions of dollars of those donations were never disclosed. flying in the face of the deal the clintons struck with the obama administration. again, all of this does not fit on a bumper sticker but from the book and various organizations like the new york times and fox news connecting some of the dots here most political watchers will tell you, this is at best for hillary clinton, a serious political issue for her campaign. chris. >> bret thank you. now, let's bring in the man who's team spent ten years on clinton money trail. peter sweitzer author of "clinton cash." let's start with the phrase bret used you mention, the clinton blur the mix of public and private and charity and government action. what's your point? xbl xbl >> the point is when former president travels the world and spends time in the developing world in europe when he goes there he's usually wearing several hats when his wife was in public office he's the spouse of a very powerful public figure and head of a charity and also giving speeches and he's probably there with an entourage that includes foreign business men that have matters before the government in columbia or kazakhstan or whenever it may be. when you have a mix of public and private profit making backed by the government power your spouse has, i think it creates a dangerous cocktail as far as conflict of interest is concerned. >> you have an interesting point i want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you're making between 2001 and 2012 bill clinton made 13 speeches 13 for which he was paid $500,000 or more. 11 of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state. peter, what do you think that shows? sfl i think you can only come to one of two conclusions in january of 2009 when hillary clinton becomes secretary of state, he has become more eloquent than he ever was and he's a very eloquent man. >> speaking fees went up. >> in uranium deal, there's a $500,000 speech he's made by a investment banking firm tied to putin, he had only given one speech in russia before that for which he was paid a third of that. so the question becomes why did his speaking fees go up and why did it go up with corporations and with individuals and with people connected to foreign governments who had business before the state department. >> what's your answer? >> my answer is that's extremely troubling, especially the fact that it's a very extensive pattern. this is not one or two examples. there are 11 instances, when you have one or two examples it's quins dents, when you have this many to me it's a trend. >> let's go through a time line and it's complicated but a timeline of the uranium deal that bret mentioned and you report in the book. 2005 bill clinton and frank giustra gives the clinton $31 million and later pledges $100 million more. 2010 a russian company wants to buy uranium one. the new chairman of uranium one donates $2 million to the clinton foundation which fails to report the money. in june of 2010 billion clinton gets $500,000 for a speech in moscow. in october a u.s. government committee approves the sale of uranium one to the russian company. question is there a connection between all of those millions of dollars that are going to clinton personally and to the clinton foundation and state department's approval of this deal? >> i believe there is. it's not just frank giusstra but there are nine major donors who have written multimillion dollar checks tied to the deal. the two financial advisers who arrange for the sale are both major clinton contributors. the chairman of the company is and some of the key shareholders are. the question is when this transfer was approved what role did hillary clinton. >> sieve yus is that committee that approves in october of 2010 the sale to russian company with close ties to putin. this is what they hit back hard on. it is a committee of nine agencies and they point out that there is no hard evidence and you don't cite any in the book that hillary clinton took direct action was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company. >> well here's what's important to keep in mind. it was one of nine agencies but any one of those agencies have veto power. she could have stopped the deal. of all of those nine agencies who was the most hawkish on these type of issues hillalary clinton, she had a reputation going back to the dubai ports deal. at this point also -- >> this is what i think in 2005 that the united arab emirates are buying several american ports and she was a u.s. senator and said we shouldn't have foreign companies buying huge u.s. assets. >> i think it would fit that bill. what's also happening in 2010 basically they are claiming she didn't know about this deal. in 2010 when this deal is going down, she is responsible for the nuclear negotiations with the government and point person on the russian reset. you've got four senior members of congress who have written a letter expressing concerns about the deal. >> if i may, you don't have a single piece of evidence that she was involved in this deal that she sent a memo to the person, the state department representative on this committee and said hey, we want to approve the sale. >> i'm a journalist so i don't have access to government records and don't have access to her e-mails, doesn't seem like anybody does. with this deal and others we cite in the book is it coincidence in a pattern that we see repeated dozens of timeses where large clinton supporters have business before the state department and make large payments and favorable actions are taken? i don't think coincidence occur that frequently. >> haiti, after the devastating earthquake there in 2010 and bill clinton goes to haiti and becomes co-chair of the haitian relief committee, which approved millions of dollars in new projects part of the relief. in 2010 and 2011 a mobile phone company gets more than $2 million in u.s. taxpayer money to set up a money transfer program. the company's owner, dennis o'brien arranges four speeches for bill clinton and also contributes between 1 and $5 million because that's the disclosure. 1 and $5 million for the clinton foundation. peter, again, it doesn't look good but what evidence do you have that bill clinton did anything to steer this project to digicel and did it in return for the good auspices of this irish billionaire? >> i was not subject to conversations they had and did not have access to internal memos but you see this pattern of benefits. that's the key question the analogy i would use is like insider trading. members f i wrote a book about members of congress engaging in insider trading. most people who engage in insider trading don't send an e-mail that says i have inside information by the stock. they look at the pattern of behavior did somebody with access to the information conduct a series of well timed stock trades that warrants further investigation? that's my contention here you see a series of actions enormously beneficial and in some cases hillary clinton is reversing course on policy she embraced before for the benefit of clinton donors and i'm saying this warrants investigation. >> do you think -- you're not a lawyer and as you say it warrants further investigation, do you think clintons committed a crime here? do you think they were guilty of bribery? >> i'm not a lawyer. what i would say, if you look at the case of governor mcconnell in virginia -- >> mcdonnell in virginia you look at the senator menendez in new jersey there's no quid pro quos in those cases, they were simply prosecuted on the grounds that there was this pattern of gift giving which led to -- >> one thing there though in the case of mcdonnell in virginia or menendez, there's an indication that they took direct action themselves there's no indication that hillary clinton or bill clinton took direct action. it's a coincidence and some could say more than that, but you don't have direct action. >> i think they discover it once law enforcement began investigation. that's my point, my point as you point d out, i state this clearly in the book i don't have subpoena power, i'm an author i'm looking at patterns of behavior and saying this warrants further investigation. >> there's one other case -- a lot more cases but one other i want to get into that is vcs miningartup company granted for first time in 50 years a permit for open pit gold mining in haiti. one of the board members of vcs mining was a fellow named tony rodham hillary clinton's younger brother who has no background in mining. >> exactly. this is again another example where you see this timing question. tony rodham meets with vcs mining officials at the clinton global initiative event in 2012. a couple months later granted a permit by the haitian government difficult to get, only two granted in the last 50 years and lo and behold he is added to the board. you can look at that and say it's coincidence. but as you see events repeated over and over again from colombia to kazakhstan to africa that's what i think is troubling. >> the clinton campaign has gone hard after you and your book. here is clinton n podesta. >> he cherry picked information that's been disclosed and woven a bunch of conspiracy theories about it. the facts, there's nothing new about the conspiracy theories he'll get the judge when we read the book. >> your response? >> they are not conspiracy theories and he's incorrect. one of the finds in the book is that you have multimill dollar donations never disclosed. the thing we have to keep in mind the clintons try to say they are transparent. the reason they are transparent with the foundation is the barack obama transition team in 2008 insisted on disclosure. the senate foreign relations committee insisted they disclose donations and as the wall street journal and new york times confirmed on thursday there are multimillion dollar donations never disclosed. those were the only ones we could find by going through canadian tax records. >> the clinton camp notes you work for george w. bush and his white house and worked for the conservative news website. and this is a right wing pitch -- >> it's an interesting statement, the two previous books looked at insiding trading by members of congress. i looked at dennis hastert and his stock trades and in extortion i was criticized by john boehner about his practices. when we finish researching and writing this book i went to the investigative units at the new york times and fox news and abc because i wanted this evidence to be evaluated and looked at to not be seen in partisan terms. these are not cup cakes or partisans, these are serious journalists and confirming the reporting we found. >> is it true because it's been reported this week you are looking into jeb bush's finance when he was governor of florida and if so what have you found? >> we've been looking at it for four months. weaver continuing we've actually talked previous to the book sort of coming out and being exposed, we talked to media outlet's everything from an airport deal in north nor da to land deals in north florida and education fundings and connections to jeb bush's education found aegs and what not. we're not prepared to release that yet but will in the coming months. >> are you seeing connections between groups that have interest with the government and money coming in? >> yes, it's a common story unfortunately. we see both sides of the aisle that engage in it. with the clintons it's more global in scale because they are global actors but yes, there's no question that we see a similar pattern emerging it's too soon to tell exactly the full ramifications of what the findings will be but we'll be glad to come back and report on them. peter, thanks for coming in today. >> thanks for having me. >> for more on this you can see the full documentary, the tangled clinton web tonight at 10:00 eastern on the fox news channel. up next reaction from a clinton insider, former white house special counsel lanny davis on whether bill or hillary clinton a look outside the beltway at the brooklyn new york site of hillary clinton's campaign headquarters well the clinton camp has been quick to dismiss peter sweitzer's new book as a partisan smear but declined our invitation for an interview. lanny davis has agreed to talk. he has a long history handling clinton legal troubles advising then president clinton on campaign finance and impeachment. welcome back. >> thank you, chris. >> let's start with one of the big points that peter makes in his book. how do you explain bill clinton's speaking fees went up after his wife became secretary of state and the fact that the 13 speeches he's made since he left the white house for which he was paid $500,000 or more 11 of those 13 were while she was secretary of state. >> i can't explain why people decide to pay george bush and others lots of money, that's there decision. knowing bill clinton all of these years he's worth listening to and because of his activities all over the globe and certainly in the foundation he's probably worth that amount of money. >> i gels the question is you would think the market would be that he would be most valuable and most interesting right after he left the white house. in fact the speaking fee goes up dramatically and 11 of the 13 biggest speeches were when she was secretary of state. do you see a link there? >> i don't because it's more logical that right after he got out of the white house before the foundation's activities and he did so much good around the world, he's going to be less valuable. i know that former presidents receive fees of this dimension. i'm not shocked but i can't read motives of people who pay. he has nothing to do and religiously had a wall between himself and secretary clinton when she was secretary of state. >> here's the question back in 2009 when hillary clinton was going through her confirmation hearing, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee raised precisely this concern. take a look. >> the clinton foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it can curry favor through a donation. it also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the secretary of state in relation to foreign givers or their countries. >> there's the chairman and a pretty nonpartisan chairman, richard luger. >> absolutely. >> giving an explanation of the concern that clinton's money that goes to clinton or to the foundation may be a way for foreign governments and foreign entities to curry favor with hillary clinton as secretary of state. yet, bill clinton continues at that -- after that to take millions of dollars from foreign -- for foreign entities for speeches and tens of millions for the donations. >> i agree senator lugar asked a valid question and clintons responded on a valid question on making everything transparent. the clinton foundation donors are all named, no anonymous donors unlike lots of other non-profits and moreover i don't think but for a few inadvertent errors they ever violated the agreement on transparency on not taking money from foreign governments. >> but we know because of the propertying in peter's book of one major violation of this a failure to disclose and that is that ian telfer the chairman of the uranium one gave 2.5$2.5 million to the clinton foundation through his family's fernwood foundation and yet that contribution $2.35 million, i know they have a lot of money but that's not pocket change. that contribution was never reported. >> look we've known each other for a long time. you used the word major -- >> you don't think 2.35 million is major? >> let me finish. $2.35 million out of $2 billion is not major even by any definition moreover not on this program to resolve, a fundamental dispute whether 2.35 was given to the foundation or another organization based in canada that was a fund for social artist tist. >> in every other case was reported. >> we do not think that was a contribution to the foundation if it was 2.35 million divided by 2 billion, the amount they collected over all of the years, to me 2.35 divided by 2 billion is what i call major. >> it's what i call major. >> we have a right to disagree on the word major. >> how do you explain a startup getting the first permit for open pit mining in haiti in half a century and do you think that the fact that hillary clinton's younger brother tony rodham was on the board of vcs played any role? >> i don't think so. i have seen nothing that suggests that he was a cause of getting that licensor influence, but the only fact i know of -- this is a new topic for me he arrived on that board nine months after the license was granted. if i'm right about that i think you would probably withdraw your innuendo that he was somehow influential as hillary's brother in getting that license. >> i had no heard that and we'll obviously -- >> i'm not sure i'm right but that's what i believe the case nine months after the license was issued tony rodham was on board. >> how do you explain canadian mining executives giving the clinton foundation millions and russian company with close ties to vladimir putin paying bill clinton half a million dollars for a speech in moscow first speech in five years, just as the russian company was trying to get this -- this uranium company and had to go through u.s. government approval? >> i'll try to do this in less than 30 seconds. the standard answer has been there's no evidence of relationship between those donations to the foundation and the deal that was approved by the review panel. let me give you a stronger statement. there are facts that contradict the inferns. the nuclear regularry commission approved this deal. the department of treasury and defense and energy approved the deal. the utah regulatory commission approved the deal and the canadian re