The Clinton Foundation issued a statement on Sunday in which it admitted it “made mistakes” over the listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms. At the same time, the author of a forthcoming book, which alleges that donors to the family’s interests may have received government favours, called for an urgent investigation.



Barely into her run for the White House in 2016, Hillary Clinton is already engulfed in controversy over donations, political influence and transparency.

On Sunday morning, Maura Pally, acting chief executive of the Clinton Foundation – which is run by the former secretary of state, her husband the former president Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea – published the statement on its website. Pally explained that the foundation will probably have to re-file tax forms for “some” years, following a voluntary external review.

While total revenue for the charitable foundation had been properly reported, the statement said, grants received from foreign governments had not been separated from other donations.

“Our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations,” Pally wrote. She continued: “So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they do not happen in the future.”

She also pointed out that the grants always had been properly listed and broken out and “available for anyone to see” on the foundation’s audited financial statements, which were posted on its website.

Pally added that the foundation was committed to being operated responsibly and effectively.

The statement came as author Peter Schweizer was appearing on the Sunday political talk shows and calling for investigations into donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. His book, Clinton Cash, will be published on 5 May.

Schweizer appeared on Fox News Sunday and ABC’s This Week and in both cases called attention to what he said was a “troubling pattern” of behaviour in which donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests coincided with controversial US government decisions favouring those interests, including decisions made at the State Department when Clinton was secretary of state.

He compared the situation to insider trading or corruption, in which there may not be direct proof of a criminal quid pro quo taking place, but where there is a pattern of behaviour that warrants attention.

“It’s a very extensive pattern,” he told Fox.

Asked on ABC if there was a “smoking gun” that would show corrupt links, he said: “The smoking gun is the pattern.”

“Whenever you have an issue of the flow of funds to political candidates, or their foundation, or their spouse, is there evidence of a pattern of favourable decisions being made for those individuals?” he said.

Schweizer said his book would show dozens of examples.

“Some people, particularly the Clinton camp, would say that these are all coincidences,” he said. “I think you are talking about a trend.”

Asked if he thought a criminal investigation should be launched, Schweizer said he did not know. He has admitted that there is no proof that government decisions signed off by Clinton’s State Department were linked to donations made to the Clinton Foundation, but demanded an investigation.

Schweizer pointed out that in the cases of Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia, who was convicted of corruption-related charges, and Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who is under federal investigation, direct proof was not needed prior to a criminal probe – the prosecutions were launched through a pattern of behaviour being observed.

“What you had was funds flowing to individuals, some of them gifts, some of them campaign contributions and actions that were being taken by those public officials that seemed to benefit the contributors,” he said.

“Certainly I think [the Clinton foundation] warrants investigation.”

Schweizer said he wanted a probe into, among other things, donations to the Clintons’ charitable interests from Canadian individuals linked to a US-approved mining deal that helped Russians corner a significant share of the uranium market.

Talking more broadly about what his book may or may not prove, he said: “It’s not up to an author to prove crime. You need subpoena power, you need access to records and information, you need access to emails, you cannot leave it up to an author to say that an author has to prove a criminal case.”

Schweizer is known as a conservative commentator. But he pointed out that for the past four months he and a team of researchers have been studying the finances of a likely Republican presidential candidate, Jeb Bush.

“We have been looking at land deals, an airport deal, we have been looking at financial transactions involving hedge funds based out of the UK,” he said.

“I think people will find it very, very interesting and compelling.”