Bucket list. I have something that rhymes with bucket list. Announcer from abc news, this week with George Stephanopoulos begins now. And we have so much to cover. This morning we begin with breaking news. New aftershocks in nepal across south asia after that massive 7. 8 earthquake that has killed thousands already. The pictures of the devastation just incredible. That is an avalanche that was sparked by the quake. Its hit climbers near mt. Everest. Lets get right to abcs Alex Marquardt on the phone from delhi, india the staging air what for the aid effort. Good morning, alex. Reporter good morning, george. We got word from nepal just a short time ago theres been another huge aftershock this morning. Our Abc News Team was in the air over the capital of kathmandu when it struck. We returned back to india because it was so powerful that the airport was closed. The latest death toll so far from saturdays massive quake is now more than 2100 people. It was a 7. 8 on the Richter Scale and felt as far away as china, india and bangladesh. Teams in nepal are frantically digging through the rubble looking for any survivor, many across the country spending the night outside fearful that more tremors would bring down their homes. Now, we know that at least two americans were killed, both on mt. Everest, when the base camp was hit by a huge avalanche triggered when the earthquake struck. One of them was google executive dan fredinburg. At least 16 others on the mountain also died. The situation still very fluid this morning, george. Rescuers and resources desperately trying to get into nepal amid fears that the death toll will only continue to grow. George. Thank you, alex. The u. S. Ramping up its aid effort, as well. Were going to turn now to the fallout from that tragic drone strike revealed by president obama this week. Two innocent hostages including american Warren Weinstein killed by mistake and as president obama has called for a fullscale review of americas drone policy, abcs chief investigative correspondent brian ross is here with an exclusive report on how americas policy for ransom on hostages may be changing too. Good morning, george. The u. S. Has been steadfast in its policy it will not pay ransom to terror groups for american hostages or allow others to either but one part may be changing. Three senior u. S. Officials tell abc news that a white house review of hostage policy will recommend the u. S. Look the other way if families on their own try to raise money to buy their loved ones freedom. Officials say the change comes in the wake of what happened in the case of hostage james foley and others. While isis was threatening him with death, his parents say a white house official was threatening them with prosecution if they tried to raise a ransom for his freedom. We were told very clearly three times that it was illegal for us to try to ransom our son out and that we had the possibility of being prosecuted. Reporter its not clear that any ransom could have saved foley, but it left his parents outraged at the white house which would not comment on the allegations but asked us not to use the name of the official the foleys say made the threat. These folks talking to us had no idea what it was like to be the family of a kidnapped american. Reporter since august, six americans held hostage have been killed. The family of the most recent victim, Warren Weinstein, did make an unsuccessful ransom payment of 250,000 according to people familiar with the arrangement, but the families of other victims say they too were threatened with prosecution if they paid ransom. I think it was a horrible thing to do to the families. I think it was a mistake. Reporter now three u. S. Officials say that mistake will not be repeated under recommendations contained in an ongoing white house review of u. S. Hostage policy. There will be absolutely zero chance, said one official, of any Family Member of an american held hostage overseas ever facing jail themselves or even the threat of prosecution for trying to free their loved ones. This is a good thing. We often hear the phrase all options on the table. Ransom is no different. Reporter former fbi agent jack cloonan now helps negotiate for the release of hostages and says some of the u. S. Hostages might still be alive if ransom had been permitted. Not allowing that discussion about ransom to go forward was a mistake. You can reach an agreement even with a group as despicable as isis is. To be clear, the u. S. Government policy that it will not pay ransom or make concessions would not change in the belief that it could lead to more americans being taken hostage, but if president obama approves these recommendations, families or employers who try to raise or pay ransom will no longer be threated with prosecution. All right, brian. Quite a change. To dick clark, should the president accept this recommendation . I wouldnt. The president has to try to make it unattractive to go after americans as hostages. And the way you do that is by saying there are only two things going to happen. Either were going to go in and rescue, or youre going to have that hostage forever. If you say well pay, then there will be many more hostages. Even if its a private payment. Congressman john delaney here, as well. I know you, worked closely with Warren Weinsteins family during this ordeal. You cant give the details of this 250,000 payment but do you know if they received any threats of prosecution from the government. Im not aware of them receiving any or the details around the alleged payments but im certainly not aware of them receiving any threats. What do you make of this possible change . Listen, i think it could make sense. Id like to see the data that suggests that families being put in a position where they can actually pay to get their loved ones home actually changes the outcomes in terms of how many people are taken hostage. I totally support the u. S. Governments policy. We should absolutely not negotiate for hostages, but to put families like the foleys in the situation they were in, i think is really tough. Let me turn to chief Global Affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz because the drone policy also under review, as well after the president gave that apology this week. He said he is going to do a fullscale review of how we use these drones, as well. Several looks at what went wrong, and when you look back at this, these were called signature strikes. They not only did not know the hostages were there, they didnt know one of the leaders of al qaeda in india was there. So they clearly didnt have a lot of information about this. Theres a golden standard, a Gold Standard that they could possibly use in the future. Thats you have signals intelligence meaning you picked up cell phone conversations or Something Like that. You have constant overhead. And you have human intelligence and that is often the key to knowing exactly what is going on in places like this. But its so difficult to get the human intelligence so difficult to its incredibly difficult. I honestly cant see them going that far because this drone policy has worked. Well, its worked. Its been dramatically ramped up under president obama but hes also tried to put some restrictions on it in the wake of these revelations about more civilian casualties. Exactly, and the standard now is that you have to have near certainty that there are no civilians there. So i think what they look at is how do you define near certainty. Dick clarke, you were there at the beginning of the ramping of this policy under george w. Martha has said its been effective at knocking out core al qaeda but starting to create blowback, as well. When you do these signature strikes meaning by definition you dont know who youre killing, you just know the facility looks like an al qaeda facility, when you do signature strikes, thats very risky, and president obama said he was going to stop them and clearly he didnt. What kind of changes are you calling for . Well, what were calling for is the creation of effectively a hostage czar which deals with a slightly different issue, finding the hostages because in my experience with warrens case we do not do as good of a job or as effective of a job as we could as a country in locating these hostages and warren was held as a hostage for over three years. And the coordination between the different parts of our government and the individuals in those different parts work really hard on these matters but we just didnt see the kind of coordination and effectiveness and leveraging some of our partners in the region to actually identify where these hostages were. And brian, that is something that we could be seeing more coordination under this government. Absolutely have the fbi involved, the state department and theyre not always talking. They dont always agree and dont always use their resources the best they could and someone that could control that at the center point is important. Well turn to clinton cash, the Controversial Book hasnt even been released and its already creating another campaign firestorm for hillary, Hillary Clinton. We asked the Clinton Campaign to appear. This morning they chose not to but author Peter Schweizer is standing by live to lay out his case after this report from abcs cecilia vega. Reporter for Hillary Clinton, the hits just keep on coming. A firestorm as questions mount about cash donations. Reporter a president ial Campaign Just two weeks old dogged by report after report questioning millions in foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Many of those claims laid out in a new book, clinton cash. Author Peter Schweizer making this bold charge, my Research Team and i have uncovered a repeated pattern of Financial Transactions coinciding with official actions favorable to clinton contributors. One of his examples, the state department, one of several agencies, signing off on the 2010 sale of one of americas largest Uranium Mines to russia. The book claims the companys canadian chairman used his Family Charity to donate more than 2 million to the Clinton Foundation. Reporter and though clinton promised the white house the foundation would disclose donors there is not an inherent conflict of interest. Reporter the book claims it didnt always do that. And this, abc news has learned that while clinton was secretary of state, her husbands speaking fees in many cases doubled, even tripled. Thank you. Reporter bill clinton raking in millions, some of that with groups with interests pending before the state Department Although abc found no evidence that Hillary Clinton took action based on these contributions. On the campaign trail we asked clinton about the controversy. Did foreign entities receive any special treatment for making any kind of donations to the foundation or your husband . The republicans seem to be talking only about me. I dont know what theyd talk about if i werent in the race. Reporter her camp calling the claims of undue influence partisanfueled fiction. On that uranium deal, they say the essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the state departments review of the sale to russians. Republicans see it differently. The notion that somehow official u. S. Policy was influenced by donations, thats a troubling allegation. If proven to be true i think is a disqualifier. Reporter allegations that dont hit store shelves until may 5th. For this week, cecilia vega, abc news, new york. And the author of clinton cash, Peter Schweizer joins us now. Thank you for joining us, peter. You know i was looking at the book jacket right here, and you say that here in the book jacket that your reporting raises serious and alarming questions about judgment of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests and ultimately a fitness for high public office. So, how does your reporting show that Hillary Clinton may be unfit for the presidency . Well, i think the real question, george, is when you ever have an issue of the flow of funds to political candidates whether thats to their campaigns, whether thats to private foundations, whether thats to their spouse, is there evidence of a pattern of favorable decisions being made for those individuals, and i think the point that we make in the book is that there is a troubling pattern. There are dozens of examples of that occurring. Some people, i think particularly the clinton camp, would say these are all coincidence. I dont think when youre talking about 12 instances, youre talking coincidence, i think youre talking trend. You take it far and write the pattern is troubling enough to warrant further investigation by Law Enforcement officers. Correct. Do you have any evidence that a crime may have been committed . Well, i think if you look at a couple of recent examples, for example, governor mcconnell down in virginia or you look at senator menendez, in these cases you didnt have evidence of a quid pro quo. What you had was funds flowing to elected officials, some of them gifts, some of them Campaign Contributions and actions that were being taken by those Public Officials that seem to benefit the contributors. Certainly i think it warrants investigation. What that investigation but a criminal investigation . Well, well see. I mean, thats what governor mcconnell has faced and thats what menendez has faced and the evidence is far more widespread in terms of repeated action than there were in those two instances. As you know the Clinton Campaign says you havent produced a shred of evidence that the secretary supported the interest of donors. We did an investigation and found no proof of any kind of direct action and an independent government ethics expert bill alison wrote from the sunlight foundation. Theres no smoking gun. Theres no evidence that the changed policy based on donation of the foundation. No smoking gun. Its a little like Insider Trading. I wrote a book on congressional Insider Trading a couple of years ago and talked with prosecutors. Most people that engage in criminal Insider Trading dont send an email that says ive got inside information, buy this stock. The way they look at it, they look at a pattern of stock trades. If the person has access to that information and they do a series of welltimed trades, that warrants investigation. I think the same thing applies here. By the way, whats important to note is it was confirmed on thursday both by the New York Times and the wall street journal that there are multimillion dollar nondisclosed donations that were made to the Clinton Foundation that were never disclosed by the clinton, and this is a direct breach of an agreement they signed with the white house . That is an issue for them but its not criminal. Nothing that would wouldnt a criminal investigation. So lets look at some of the specifics behind your pattern. A lot of focus on the sale of a Company Uranium one to a russian company. Of course, Frank Giustra who had committed, what 130 million pledged to the Clinton Foundation back in 2006 had had an interest in this company but he actually sold it. Well, he sold hit stock, but his firm endeavor financial, continued to do finance deals well after that and the individuals involved in the book as you probably read there are nine, count them, nine major contributors to the Clinton Foundation who were involved in that nuclear deal. The two individuals who were the Financial Advisers on the deal of the sale to the russians are both major Clinton Foundation supporters. The chairman of that foundation, ian telfer whose donations were not disclosed sorry, Clinton Foundation contributor and there are others so this is not just about Frank Giustra. This is about multiple layers. You did disclose in your book that he sold the interest. Beyond that deal was approved by a board of the government called the cfius board that is actually chaired by the secretary of treasury. Eight other agencies on board, the secretary of state, homeland security, defense, commerce, energy, the Nuclear Regulatory commission signed off on it. And even though the state department was one of nine agencies to sign off on it, there is no evidence at all that Hillary Clinton got directly involved in this decision. Well, i think it warrants further investigation and theres a couple things that need to be clarified. Number one, she was one vote or the state department was one vote on cfius, but any agency has veto power, so it needs to be unanimous so they had to support this agreement. The second thing i would say is that in the midst of all of this, Hillary Clinton was in charge of the russian reset. She was in charge of of the a123 Nuclear Agreements with the russians. She was the one that was meeting with lavrov. There were four senior congressmen on National Security