Former DIA chief on setbacks in Brussels probe; Kasich on terror plan, path forward in 2016 race

This is a rush transcript from "The Kelly File," March 28, 2016. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, GUEST HOST: Breaking tonight. Ugly new fallout from the investigation into a terror attack that killed nearly three dozen people including several Americans as authorities reveal that one of the biggest arrests they've announced so far has now turned out to be the wrong guy.

Welcome, everybody, to "The Kelly File" tonight, I'm Martha MacCallum in for Megyn Kelly. And ironically as the terror attack overseas continues to unfold, we also saw a major scare at both the White House and Capitol Hill today where a lone gunman raised new questions about security here at home.  We're going to have more on that later in the hour.

But we start tonight with new surveillance video from the moments before the deadly Brussels attack last week. The video shows the so-called man in white casually strolling through the airport with his apparent accomplices who would die moments later as their suicide bombs went off. His did not.  Belgium media began reporting that he had been arrested and authorities were charging him with terrorism and with murder, but now they say they did not have the right guy. He's been released and we're now back to square one in the search for that mysterious third bomber whom you see pictured there. They've asked for all the help they can get from people nearby.

Mike Tobin is live in Brussels with the latest on this. Good evening, Mike.

MIKE TOBIN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Martha. And there are two key players that the investigators have identified that they do not have in custody. They don't have the second participant from the metro bombing, a sketch of him was released. He was said to have been accompanying Khalid Bakraoui, the known metro bomber who died when he sat off his own bomb. This individual was said to be accompanying him carrying that bag. That person is not in custody. And now they don't have the mysterious third bomber from the airport. The local media said they had him.

Prosecutor's office only identified him as Faycal C. The investigating judge said, the evidence against him did not stand up. So, he had to release. Faycal C is now a free man although he faced the most stiff charges as anyone so far in this investigation. They let him go. The third bomber is at large. The investigators released this video today with the intention that they could drum up some new tips. The investigation is moving along at a rapid pace. There have been raids all over Belgium.  There was a raid in Rotterdam that was linked to an earlier raid in Paris.  Investigators in Italy picked up someone they say allegedly was forging documents as part of the overall effort. Investigators have picked up explosives, weapons, telephone sim cards. They've all been seized. They have eight individuals they say are key targets. All of them, Martha, are still at large.

MACCALLUM: Mike, thank you very much. So, we are also learning that Belgian authorities may have missed their chance to prevent these killers from carrying out their plans. Belgian authorities arrested one of the key players in the Paris attacks four days before the Brussels attacks. But despite what we're told was a high level of interest in him, he was questioned for about two hours and was not asked any questions about possible pending attacks. We're talking about Salah Abdeslam who you see pictured here.

Retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn is the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and he joins me now. Good to have you here tonight, sir. Welcome.

LT. GENERAL MICHAEL T. FLYNN (R), UNITED STATES ARMY: All right. Martha, how are you?

MACCALLUM: I'm doing well.

FLYNN: Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: Good to have you here to talk tonight. You know, you listened to Mike Tobin's report, you listened to this evidence of Abdeslam and how he was treated when he was in custody, not asked any questions at all for 24 hours despite the fact that he had bomb-making material and bombs that were set to go in his apartment. How could that be?

FLYNN: Yes, Martha, one of the things I think that is coming out of this is the real need for a much stronger intelligence sharing with inside -- particularly inside of Belgium. The other though, and I will tell you because I do consider myself an expert on interrogation and debriefing of captured personnel or detained personnel, and it's going to take more than a couple hours to get the kind of information that you need out of these individuals who are suspect. So I think as we go forward, and we're going to all have to do this, I know our FBI does an extremely professional job here in this country, I know our military does an extremely professional job over in the combat zones that we've been in.

But these countries in Europe are going to have to come to grips with figuring out how do they to this to be able to hold people long enough to get the kind of information that they need and to do it professionally.  What we're finding, what you're reporting, is that there was a potential that we had -- we could have had this kind of information prior but because of whatever rules and policies that they have, they may have failed to do that which is a shame.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I don't understand this. You know, I mean, we're looking at the pictures of Salah Abdeslam who as we said, had bomb-making material in his apartment. They had every reason to think that he would have information about something else that would happen and then you have the Brussels attack just days later. And we know that, you know, there's a mentality of sort of a law enforcement proceeding that they're going by all the rules but when there are attacks happening all around you, why would that not ramp up sort of adrenaline in you that would want you -- would force you into finding any possible way to keep him as long as you could and question him as much as you could? What's the mentality?

FLYNN: Yes. First of all, you know, I think that this is, number one, this is an extremely difficult intelligence problem, but besides being an intelligence problem, this is a leadership problem. I mean, this is a problem where the leadership that we have, and the leadership that is involved in these things, they have to recognize the severity of the type of enemy that we are facing and what lengths they are willing to go to in order to kill people and to terrorize societies and communities. So, I mean, we're going to find out more about these guys. There's going to be all sorts of raids and these things are going to happen. We're going to have others attacks, Martha, in the future.

The leadership in these nations, to include the United States of America, has to come to grips with the type of enemy that we are facing and we cannot look at this as a criminal act. We have to look at this as a terrorist group that is either inspired or directed by the Islamic State based out of Raqqa, Syria, right now, and more is going to happen. So when we start to look at the problems that we're facing and the kind of things that you just described with having this guy and what they've discovered in his apartment, we're going to find out more of these things. I just hate to sit here and tell you that more to come, but more to come on this -- in these inspired attacks.

MACCALLUM: I mean, you can have a bomb-making factory, essentially, around the corner from NATO headquarters and you have no sense of urgency in questioning this man in the most compelling way possible that may have been prevented this attack --

FLYNN: That's right. We don't want the sense of urgency to come after the attack. We want these people to realize that they need have to have a sense of urgency, and we don't need another Paris, another San Bernardino, or another Brussels. We have to get the sense of urgency now. Because the enemy, Martha, is acting much faster than we are right now.

MACCALLUM: All right. General Mike Flynn. Always good to talk to you, sir. Thank you very much.

FLYNN: Thanks, Martha. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Words of wisdom. All right. So, as the Brussels probe plays out, another terror attack truly horrifying as well over this Easter weekend as a splinter group of the Pakistani Taliban, but they have claimed allegiance to ISIS, we must point out, killed 72 people including an estimated 36 children in an Easter Sunday bombing that they say specifically targeted Christians. The officials as we said mostly women and children who were out for a family day at a beautiful park in Lahore, Pakistan, which is generally a very safe place, but today it looks like a war zone.

Witnesses say the bomber detonated himself right near a swing set in the play area for young children. Horrifying photos of the victims make it clear who bore the brunt of this awful attack like this woman forced to mourn the death of her son while holding on to her young daughter. It is certainly not the first time that Christians have been the target of terror groups. On March the 4th gunmen stormed a retirement home that was run by nuns in the port city of Yemen. That killed 15 people including four nuns.  Hundreds more Christians are dead over the course of three attacks in the months prior. Fifteen hundreds over the course of 2015.

Brooke Goldstein is human rights attorney and director of the Law Fair Project. Larry Korb, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress and a former assistant defense secretary. Welcome to you both.

It is a stunning world that we're living in and stories that we have to cover. And Brooke, let me start with you. The State Department hesitated initially to say that this was an attack that was aimed at Christians, despite the fact that it was Easter Sunday when this happened. Why?

BROOKE GOLDSTEIN, HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Right. I mean, the initial presser release failed to state that it was, indeed, Christians that were targeted and, you know, I want to give the State Department some credit here. It only took them 24 hours to state the obvious that a Talibani suicide bomber that blew up on Easter Sunday targeted Christians intentionally, but it's symptomatic of a bigger issue. The reason why people are so angry that this initial presser didn't say radical Islam just like the Brussels presser didn't say that, it's because there is a pattern of behalf of the State Department, the Obama administration, that is a failure to identify the basic motive of theologically motivated terrorists.

The reason why they kill innocent civilians, innocent children, in such a brutal fashion, is not poverty, it's not economic reasons. It's theologically motivated. And we have an administration that fails to even state the term "Radical Islam," that uses counterterrorism training manuals that are devoid of the words "Islam" or "Jihad" and it frankly does not instill confidence in the American public that we know how to defeat this theologically motivated threat which is radical Islam.

MACCALLUM: I mean, I want to point out this Taliban group also has pledged allegiance to ISIS. Right? So, the idea that these are disparate attacks that are happening around the world, that have no common thread in them, that is Islamic radicalism, is a farce, frankly, at this point. Larry Korb, why, explain to me any rational reason for not connecting the dots of these and treating them as if they were the fight of our generation and a form of fascism or any other fight that a generation has had to fight in the past.

LARRY KORB, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, the State Department did condemn the attacks. They didn't say that they were directed at Christians right away because the Pakistani government said that it wasn't. In fact, a district coordinator in Lahore said, no, it wasn't against Christians. When we found out about it, then they did say it. But it was horrible. You know, they killed, as you pointed out, 36 of the dead were children. Ten were Christians. Twenty six were Muslim. And the fact that they've done this, yes, this is a big problem, but the idea that the State Department should be, you know, chastised for not saying it was against Christians.

MACCALLUM: Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, Larry. Let's just give them the benefit of the doubt right now. Okay? I mean, obviously the Taliban didn't come out as Brooke was saying. But the fact is, look at the big picture -- look at the picture of Islamic radical terrorism that is, you know -- look at Iraq, look at what happened in Pakistan, look at what happened in Brussels. You know, until we have some sort of guiding principle and understand this fight and articulate what it is, how could we ever expect to win it, to get a leg up on it, to get truly a coalition behind fighting it? Larry and then Brooke.

KORB: Well, I think what has happened the Pakistani government are now going to go after them, look, they've been on both sides of this. They're so concerned with India making inroads in Afghanistan they haven't cracked down on the Taliban but I think this was Sharif, the prime minister's hometown. So, you can bet he's going to go after them now. And think this is important. We need a coalition of countries around the world to do this. We -- as General Flynn said before, we got to get the Europeans to shape up with their intelligence and their interrogation procedures and sharing intelligence. So, yes, we have to do it, but eventually this is --

MACCALLUM: We have to.

KORB: -- going to be won when you persuade the people in the Muslim world that this is not their future. This is not who they are.

MACCALLUM: They know that. Believe me, they know that. More Muslims are attacked than any other religious groups, so you know, the Muslims are quite aware of it. In Jordan, they're aware of it. In Egypt, they're aware of it. In Pakistan, they're aware of it. But what's lacking is a leadership call to fight this for what it is, Brooke. And a lot of people do look at the President in Cuba and dancing the tango in Argentina -- tango in Argentina and they wonder, you know, where that is, where does that come from?

GOLDSTEIN: Yes, I mean, it sends the message that we don't take this seriously when we have a president doing the wave when people are mopping up blood in Brussels. I mean, we exist in a time of Islamophobe mania.  You just have to read the State Department's clarification. We had no indication that the motivation they claim was the reason was false. We didn't have the information to confirm overtly it was, in fact, the case.  What does this mean? Just call it for what it is, radical Islam. Every time someone blows themselves up, do we have to have a segment on what is the real Islam, what is the fake Islam? That is not a counterterrorism policy.

KORB: No, they condemned it. The real question was with the talk --

MACCALLUM: We condemningly heard, Larry. We've heard condemning for the last several years.

KORB: No, no, no, no --


GOLDSTEIN: They did not condemn Islamic terrorism --

KORB: They condemned the attack right away.

GOLDSTEIN: But they didn't say why --

KORB: And they wanted to wait -- and they wanted to wait and get all the information. You know, Admiral Kirby who's a spokesman is a --

GOLDSTEIN: I think we know what the Taliban's motivation is. We don't know what the motivation --


MACCALLUM: Hold on. Nobody can understand either one of you. Hold on!

KORB: They're not true. A lot of times the first reports you get from the field are not true.

MACCALLUM: All right.

KORB: So, it's better to make sure you get it right because if you have to retract it, that also feeds into the narrative.


MACCALLUM: Right. You know, anybody who watched it can figure out what happened here. Larry, thank you. Condemnation is easy. Everybody condemns this. It's the next steps that we seem to have a tough time with sometimes. Larry and Brooke, thank you very much. Good to have you both with us tonight.

So even as these new details come in on the Brussels attack, and they come to light, President Obama pledging to take in more Syrian refugees than ever in 2016. Some believe that that is a move that could put American lives at risk. We will discuss that coming up next.

Walid Phares, the new foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign is going to weigh in with his thoughts on that coming up. Stay with us.


DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You would almost say it's disgraceful, you can't even imagine that a man could make those statements especially a president of this country.



MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight in the wake of the Brussels terror attacks, President Obama standing by his controversial plan to welcome more refugees from the terror hotbed of Syria. He's vowing to up the numbers of refugees in 2016 and the President says that our openness is, he believes, a powerful example. Here he is.


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: As we move forward in this fight, we have to wield another weapon alongside our air strikes, our military, and our counterterrorism work and our diplomacy and that's the power of our example. Our openness to refugees fleeing ISIL's violence, our determination to win the battle against ISIL's hateful and violent propaganda, distorted view of Islam that aims to radicalize young Muslims to their cause.


MACCALLUM: Republican front-runner Donald Trump went hard after those remarks by the President. Here he is.


TRUMP: I can't even believe that he's saying it. It's inconceivable that he's saying it. Open borders. Everything he said there is absolutely, you would almost say it's disgraceful. You can't even imagine that a man could make those statements especially a president of this country.


MACCALLUM: Joining me now Walid Phares, he's a Fox News terrorism and Middle East analyst, he's also a member of the team that is now advising Donald Trump on foreign policy. Walid, once again, welcome, good to speak with you today.


MACCALLUM: So do you agree with Donald Trump there?

PHARES: I do agree with Mr. Trump but the real battle is not just when these refugees are going to be coming and the President making the case that it will be openness. The real battle that Mr. Trump wants to deliver is actually 20,000 kilometer away on the other side of the globe and that is to enable those refugees before they become refugees or if they are in Turkey or Lebanon, in Jordan, to return to their homes. There is a whole area in Northeastern Syria, thanks to also our strikes against ISIS and the administration has been arguing that we're making gains.

So, if we are making gain, we have a region of 10,000 square kilometers that we can equip and enable for the refugees so they're not refugees anymore to begin with. Then you have the other issue of when the refugees or some of them or asylum seekers will be coming to the United States, then yes, there's a humanitarian approach but then you have to vet. So, on both sides of the equation, I think Mr. Trump wants more clarity on the issue.

MACCALLUM: Yes. You know, I'm always -- it's strangely interesting when you look at the hundreds of thousands of people who have been needing help in Syria, right? And you look at the administration response, you go back to the red line moment and, you know, the President said, once they step over the red line with chemical weapons, then the equation would be changed. So there's so much compassion now, supposedly coming from the administration for these refugees as they cross. Why was it not there when hundreds of thousands of people, their relatives, their families, their friends, were being slaughtered in Syria? Where was his compassion then?

PHARES: I don't know if the American public has the capacity or access to listen to what these refugees are saying. We speak on behalf of the refugees. We don't know their leaders. We don't know their NGOs, what they're talking about, they've been talking about. And you're right, since 2013, the red line issue, is that what are you not helping us hear? Why are you allowing ISIS and Assad to actually kick us out of Syria? So basically now that there are areas inside Syria that are free, we spoke with our NGOs, at European parliament actually ten days ago and they were representing their population and they said, all we need from the west, from Europe, and the United States is to equip us at home. Young daughters and kids wants to go home.

MACCALLUM: All right. So for those who do want to come, what's the proper vetting process? You know, because obviously people look at what happened in Europe and, yes, not all of the people who've come across as refugees in Europe are terrorists but we know that a couple of them did get through and joined these groups, perhaps the ones at work in Paris and Brussels. So, that's a problem. That's a problem that has to be dealt with effectively.

PHARES: That is a problem. It's actually the most important and strategic problem. And let's look at numbers. Once we find a solution for the refugees then the second group are asylum seekers. People who can prove that they are persecuted. I of course know what that is. We have a system here. And not only that. We have also vetters. We have NGOs that could help us. But we have to decide, are we helping 200,000 people to come or are we interviewing 200 people, 400 people to, you know, to be asylum seekers in the United States? That's a big difference.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, very quickly, as I said to you earlier, you could pick any candidate. Why do you think that Donald Trump is the right person for this given the fact that he gets criticized for being way too vague about foreign policy?

PHARES: He has been very criticized by comparing his statement as he is a candidate with those who are candidates at the same time, it's the same vagueness -- I would say it's the same, you know, abstraction. I think Mr. Trump with what he has achieved on the personal level, professional level if married and coupled with information and analysis and update and briefings by real analysts, he could deliver, in my view.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, you think they're all vague but you like his background.

PHARES: I do like his professional achievement, that are strategic before he becomes president or leading the administration.

MACCALLUM: Right. We will see. Walid, thank you very much. Good to speak with you tonight.

PHARES: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, as the new and harrowing details of the Brussels terror attack have come to light including what may now look like some frightening missteps from Belgian authorities, you just heard from Walid Phares and the Trump campaign who have a very different take from President Obama on how to fight and handle this and how to keep America safe.

Joining us now with his thoughts, Republican Governor of Ohio and presidential candidate John Kasich. Governor, welcome. Good evening to you.


MACCALLUM: You know, the fact that they had this individual in custody then they let him go, they also had Abdeslam in custody and it took them 24 hours to ask him a single question. They said they were worried about him because he was tired. What does this spell to you and what would you do if you were president to make America safer than what we're seeing in Belgium?

KASICH: Well, look, first of all, you know, when this happened I would have come home from Cuba, not gone to a baseball game with Castro. Number two, I would have had my military and intelligence people brief me and then I would have talked to all the heads of state in Europe and I would have sent our people over there to discuss their vulnerabilities. I think now they're beginning to move in this direction. Secondly, we need to have great human intelligence so these calls for banning Muslims from coming into the country or patrolling, you know, neighborhoods or whatever, I mean, these are people that need to be in the loop in terms of telling uses about the radicals that they see.

Whether it's in the mosque or in their neighborhood. We need to take the entire world of the civilized countries and we need to come together and on top of it, Martha, we got to stop wasting our time here and not moving aggressively with our friends in the Arab/Muslim world along with Europe to destroy ISIS both in the air and on the ground. So you destroy ISIS, you begin to rebuild your intelligence, you share it worldwide, you take the fight against these radicals, these Islamists, bring the world together and here in the United States you make sure that your Joint Terrorism Task Force --

MACCALLUM: I hear what you're saying.

KASICH: -- can disrupt these plots here at home.

MACCALLUM: A lot of that has been, you know, tried and some of it might work, you know, in terms of --

KASICH: I don't think --

MACCALLUM: It hasn't been tried except you would like it to be. I understand. In terms of NATO, Donald Trump has said that he thinks that NATO is useless in its current form and that he wants everybody to know that the wall -- you say the wall's already come down and they need to do something that's a little more instrumental. What role would NATO play in a Kasich environment?

KASICH: Well, I proposed just the other day that NATO move from just a military structure into an intelligence gathering and also policing activity. That, you know, NATO is there, it works across borders. It's a perfect opportunity to use a structure like that to rebuild these things.

MACCALLUM: But they don't seem to be very enthusiastic to do that right now. Why aren't they doing that? These are their countries that are being affected and they're not doing it.

KASICH: Well, first of all, there's a big element of political correctness, bureaucracy. People stepping on each other's turf. And they don't want to do that. But that's what a leader of the United States ought to be doing. I mean, honestly, the President goes to Cuba, goes to a baseball game, he goes to Argentina, does the tango and he should have been back here leading the way and, frankly, our people should be in Europe and they should be coordinating all of this because I got to tell you, Martha, the people over there aren't going to tolerate this much longer.

And frankly, they even had information from the Turks that warned them about this radicalized person and at the same time, you know, the head of Turkey, the President refuses to meet with. I don't get the whole thing, but as president of the United States, rebuild Domestic intelligence, which we have with our counterterrorism task forces, and bring the world together and tell them we're either going to hang together or we're going to hang separately. Do I think this can be accomplished? Absolutely it can be accomplished. But not by -- this is not amateur hour. This requires people who have had vast experience in National Security which I have had.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let me ask you a couple questions about the presidential election before I let you go.


MACCALLUM: One is Wisconsin where you have changed your strategy a bit.  You're focusing on certain Congressional districts and a lot of people look at that and say that, you know, you're sort of trying to deflect the Trump effect in Wisconsin. You're looking for areas where maybe you can accumulate some delegates. Maybe it's not a bad strategy.

KASICH: Well, we think it's a good strategy. You kind of go where you think you can be successful and then we'll be rolling on to Pennsylvania where I'm in a virtual tie with Donald Trump and we think, you know, these are places, what's coming in the future, places where we think we can be highly competitive and our strategy is to accumulate delegates and head into the convention with momentum because I don't believe anybody is going to have enough delegates and we'll be there. And let me remind everybody that I'm the only one that can beat Hillary Clinton. The latest FOX poll has me up 11. All the polls show me beating Hillary Clinton by a vast amount.

MACCALLUM: We're showing that poll right now.

KASICH: Pick somebody who can win.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let me ask you --

KASICH: Pick somebody who can win in the fall. Yes. I'm sorry.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you this, if Donald Trump gets to 1,237, will you back off and say this is the nominee?

KASICH: He's not going to get to 1,237.

MACCALLUM: What if he does, if he does.

KASICH: Look, that's like saying what if a space man lands tonight?

MACCALLUM: Not really. I mean, he's not that far away when you look at the delegate map. So, I'm just asking, we know what your scenario is if he doesn't get there. But if he does get there, does that change --

KASICH: Well, Martha, he's not. No, he's not.

MACCALLUM: There's no way he can get there. All right.

KASICH: We're going to a convention. No, no, he's not. And look, if I had left the race, by the way, he would have won Ohio and he would have been guaranteed about getting there. We're going to be competitive in the states going forward. And he's not going to have the delegates. And you know what, of the ten times that Republicans had a convention, only three times did the leading delegate winner was able to win the convention. In other words, just because you don't have as many delegates as the leader doesn't mean you can't win. In fact, seven out of ten means you do.

MACCALLUM: All right. Well, you're going to help make it a very interesting few months. And we look forward to seeing this whole thing all the way through the summer. Governor John Kasich, thank you very much.

All right. So while the political campaigns turn on many issues including the issue of terrorism, which is so much a focus right now, we're also seeing Trump and Cruz in a new fight over what we were just talking about to John Kasich about. Delegates. Could go to a lawsuit, we're told.  We'll tell you what's going on with that as we come up with Trump adviser Barry Bennett and political writer Guy Benson here on the stakes in this fight.


SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He sends tweets attacking my wife, attacking Heidi. It is inappropriate. It is wrong. It is frankly disgusting.



MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, ugly allegations flying between Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz just eight days before the next Republican primary. Wisconsin will vote on April the 5th. You've got 42 delegates at stake. The real clear politics average shows Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz neck and neck in what is becoming an increasingly gritty battle between these two.

Looming large in the coverage today, a tabloid newspaper story alleging that Senator Ted Cruz has had multiple extramarital affairs. Correspondent Shannon Bream live with the latest. He has denied that. He says those allegations are garbage. Shannon, what did you find out?

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Martha, denials continue on both sides of this nasty dispute which follows the week in which the wives of the top front-runners were also dragged into the fray as well. The National Enquirer piece has no concrete allegations -- plenty of innuendo - - using the words supposedly and may have along with rumor. I asked Senator Ted Cruz directly about the story on Fox News Sunday.


CRUZ: He has no answers for how to keep America safe from radical Islamic terrorism so instead he attacks my wife, he attacks my family, he goes to garbage and sleaze and lies. It's categorically false and it has no business in politics. This is why people are disgusted in politics.


BREAM: Trump has disavowed any connection to this story. His statement on the issue says in part, "I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week's issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it." Trump went on to say the National Enquirer has been right about other scandals involving O.J. Simpson and John Edwards but added, "I certainly hope they aren't right about Cruz."

Well, the two will meet up next on the ballot, April 5th in Wisconsin where recent polling shows Ohio Governor John Kasich in the double digits, and that means, he who has no mathematical possibility of reaching 1,237 delegates before the convention could be a spoiler for both the front- runners. But for now all the candidates are talking a lot more about the scandals than they are substance. We'll see how voters respond. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Shannon, thank you very much. So, at the same time, Donald Trump is threatening a lawsuit following the results of the Louisiana Republican Primary. Mr. Trump won the primary on March the 5th in Louisiana, but now it looks likes Senator Ted Cruz may actually walk away with more delegates in that state and that has Donald Trump asking what's up with that. Barry Bennett is senior adviser to the Trump campaign and a former manager to the Ben Carson campaign. Guy Benson is Fox News contributor and co-author of "End of Discussion." Welcome, gentlemen, good to have you both here. Barry, let me start with you.


MACCALLUM: How do you dispute the delegates? Basically ten additional ones went Cruz's way via Rubio delegates and then some unbound delegates that also want to Ted Cruz. That's the way the system works.

BENNTETT: Yeah, well the problem is that 46 delegates were selected at the convention and then immediately afterwards, 27 of them gathered through the request of the state party chairman, our delegates weren't invited. And then out of those 27 by a vote of 22-5, they gave the Cruz delegates all the powerful committee slots at the convention -- 22 people out of 46 people made the decision. So, that's not (ph) one for democracy.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, what we're hearing is that two Trump representatives, the Louisiana co-chairs were both at that meeting.

BENETT: Yeah, and one of them has no vote and the other one did have a vote and ...

MACCALLUM: But they were there. They watched the whole process play out, right?

BENNETT: They walked into the meeting, yes.

MACCALLUM: Okay. So, it's contrary to what you said initially, they were in attendance.

BENNETT: No, no, 18 people didn't receive invitations. That's what I said.

MACCALLUM: All right, but there were two Trump representatives at the meeting. But, you know, basically what Cruz is arguing is it goes to the rules. You may not like the way the game is played but these are the rules that are set by the RNC so, how do you sue if the rules exist and everybody's aware of them before the game starts?

BENNETT: The reason we sue is because we want the rules followed like they're supposed to be, and that's what we asked the RNC to do. To certify these people until the rules are followed.

MACCALLUM: Guy, do you think they have a case?

GUY BENSON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's not a lawsuit. It's a dispute with the RNC. Barry is right about that -- his candidate wrong about it. He called it a lawsuit in one of his tweets. That's sort of his reflective response to everything, either a juvenile taunt or a lawsuit. But in this particular case, what you're seeing is Ted Cruz and his campaign, yes, this is hard ball, no question about it. They are exploiting the rules to try to win.

They're doing it ruthlessly. They've got a team of on the ball attorneys and I think that Donald Trump rises and wanting (ph) about it should have a campaign that is equally confident, equally prepared to fight under the rules because we're told all the time Trump has the very best people. Looks like he's being outmaneuvered, out-lawyered by Ted Cruz in Louisiana.

MACCALLUM: And could be -- and it could be because we hear all the time about Ted Cruz's ground game, that he's already in advance in the states that are to come, nailing down the delegates that are accessible to him and that's the way he's working the system and it looks, you know, pretty smart.

BENNET: Look, Ted Cruz's vaunted (ph) ground game has been defeated in 22 states so, I don't think it's that great. Now, you know, this was an interparty (ph) deal in Louisiana. This happened four years ago as well. Shame on us for not getting it stopped but shame on them for trying to pull it, and we'll get it stopped at the RNC.

MACCALLUM: Guy, Louisiana politics do have a history.

BENSON: They do. So, look, we'll see what happens. Cruz has beaten Trump in a number of states. Trump has won a lot more states, obviously than anyone else.


BENSON: And the big question is will Donald Trump get to 1,237 before Cleveland? If not, it's going to be an all-bets-are-off situation.

MACCALLUM: And then it goes to the second round and the legwork that's been done with these delegates could become extremely instrumental.

BENSON: Very important.

MACCALLUM: Wow. We're going to see how it goes. Thank you very much, Barry, good to see you tonight. Guy, good to see you as well. Thanks, guys.

BENSON: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: All right, so we have new details tonight on another scene that played out. It's quite terrifying, as this got under way on Capitol Hill today especially given what happened in Brussels and in Lahore in the past week. So, you have hundreds of people racing from the scene. One officer shot. Here's what happened.



MACCALLUM: There are new developments tonight in the Federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server. As an exhaustive piece and the L.A. Times reported today, "Clinton e-mail probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom." And then also a Washington Post piece that added a lot of new information and detail, very well researched, says a staggering 147 FBI agents are on this case right now. Some have suggested, though, that there's a higher bar when it comes to prosecuting someone who is running for president. Watch this.


RON FOURNIER, NATIONAL JOURNAL COLUMNIST: I do understand that when somebody's running for president, there is a higher bar you have to get over because we can't have a system in which we're constantly charging people who are running for president with crimes.


MACCALLUM: But our own Judge Napolitano says he believes that prosecution is quite possible in a pretty short timeframe. Watch.


ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDGE AND SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: The timing is very, very treacherous. I would think the Democrats need to know whether or not they're about to nominate somebody for president who might be a criminal defendant in a felony prosecution before November. They should know that now. Prediction, something will happen by May.


MACCALLUM: He says something happens by May. Dana Perino is co-host of "The Five" and former White House press secretary under George W. Bush. She also spent some time at the Department of Justice. To this higher bar issue first that Ron Fournier brings up, what do you think about that?

DANA PERINO, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think that there's no regulation or law that says that I think that what he means is that if the Department of Justice is actually going to indict the presidential candidate, that their case better be solid and lock tight. I don't think that if you're Hillary Clinton and one of your perceptions is that you consider yourself as above the law that you want it out there, that the Justice Department has to somehow clear a higher bar to indict you for doing something that let's say a marine infantryman could have done and he would have been stripped of all of his medals and have his dishonorable discharge. If you want to be commander in chief, you want everything to be equal.

MACCALLUM: Yeah, and I would imagine that's the way James Comey at the Department of Justice is approaching this issue, that there is a law and if the law was broken, it doesn't matter if you're Hillary Clinton or if you are a garbage collector. I mean ...

PERINO: It shouldn't matter.

MACCALLUM: The same law should apply to everybody. There should not be a higher bar for someone as a presidential candidate.

PERINO: That's right. The other thing that came out today is that not only that do we find out that there's -- I don't know if it's unprecedented but it seems to me 147 agents is a lot. And that they're trying to show that they put as many resources into it as they possibly can.

But in addition, we found out that the FBI now will start to interview and question several of her top aides and closest friends and that gets to be very hairy and concerning and it can try to bog down a campaign. Her job is going to be very difficult to make sure it looks like everything's smooth and there are no problems here. I think that's harder to maintain as more information comes out.

MACCALLUM: And they will say -- they are saying that they're glad that there's a huge concentration of agents who are on this case. They believe that once it's investigated, it's going to be over for them and that that - - the reason that there's such a big effort is to do exactly that, to put this to rest.

PERINO: That's great spin and if you're -- in their camp, I don't know what else you would say because at this point, you can't question the integrity of the FBI because the FBI still holds all the cards. But just wait. If they were to do some sort of indictment, then either way, if there is an indictment, her people will cry foul and say James Comey has no integrity, et cetera. They'll try to sully the process.

If she's not indicted, Martha, think about that. It just exposes the wrought and corruption that the people on the other side think already exists in the system. So the most important thing the Justice Department can do is put blinders on, say if this were Jane Doe, breaking the law or not, what would we do? And proceed from there.

MACCALLUM: And there's no reason at this point to think that that's not exactly what they're doing.

PERINO: I agree.

MACCALLUM: And we will see when it comes out if the judge is right in a few weeks from now. Dana, thank you very much. So, my next guest agrees that this case will be wrapped up before the general election but says Hillary Clinton's use of private e-mail server resulted in no wrongdoing. Mark Hanna is a veteran of the Obama and Kerry presidential campaigns and adjunct professor of media studies at the NYU. Mark, good to have you here tonight.


MACCALLUM: So, 147 agents is a lot of people to have concentrated on this case if it's a big nothing.

HANNAH: Sure is. A 147, that made my eyes pop and it made I think a lot of people's pop. I did talk to the campaign and they do sound like -- it's actually not just the campaign that's saying they're excited to have this thing put to bed because they're kind of tired of their candidate getting pilloried in the process (ph) and they want this thing over and done with.

The feds themselves, the Department of Justice has said that they want this thing wrapped up by the general election as well. They don't want a kind of cloud hanging over -- I mean, remember, Hillary Clinton back in August said she was willing to and wanting to answer any questions these guys had for her to help them do their jobs to get to the end of it.

MACCALLUM: She missed (ph) that opportunity.

HANNAH: So, they're really cooperating.

MACCALLUM: So Cheryl Mills and probably Houma Abedin and Jake Sullivan and the other top aides who were the people who were using this Blackberry the most. The other thing that came out of this Washington Post story that was very interesting is this issue of Mahogany Row, which is the upper offices at the State Department and they went back and traced it because they want to figure out really what's going on with the story.

And that is an area where you're not allowed to bring a Blackberry in and apparently, all of these aides and Hillary Clinton were told that from day one. They said, you know what, we had Russian spy of some kind who placed a listening device inside the molding in Mahogany Row and was able to tap into it and they've been able to tap into lots of devices. They said by no means are you allowed to use a Blackberry in this area and then they, you know, found ways to get around that rule.

HANNAH: Sure. Well, fortunately according to L.A. Times article, that broke the story there, according to law enforcement there have been no security breaches into this private server. There have been no foreign, you know, successful foreign attacks or hacking events so, they've been able to affirm that.

But this is a problem that needs to get cleared up, it's use of private servers -- it didn't just exist in the Obama administration. This bleeds (ph) over into Dana's administration, the Bush administration. Secretary of State Collin Powell was also ...

MACCALLUM: Yeah, the question here is not that, because everybody knows that they were allowed. The question is whether or not the classified information was made vulnerable at any point and not whether or not it was hacked.

HANNAH: Sure, and whether it was sacrificed at the time. We know that -- we know that -- okay.

MACCALLUM: I got to leave it there Mark. They're counting me down. I'm sorry. I'm out of time. We will talk again, thanks, Mark.

HANNAH: Thanks Martha.

MACCALLUM: All right. We'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, a harrowing scene on Capitol Hill as a man tried to pass a security checkpoint with a gun and security teams went into action in a big way. James Rosen is on the Hill as it unfolded and he is live in our Washington bureau.

JAMES ROSEN, FOX NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Martha, good evening. Multiple sources confirm to Fox News the suspect here is Larry Russell Dawson of Tennessee, the same man arrested in October after he allegedly disrupted proceedings in the House Chamber. Capitol police say today's incident began around 2:40 Eastern Time when the suspect tried to enter the Capitol Visitor Center. Police said the suspect then drew, "what appeared to be a weapon and so an officer fired and struck the suspect."

He was treated by medical personnel, taken to a hospital and them operated on -- his condition unknown. And police located Dawson's vehicle, a silver Dodge Ram pickup parked near the house side of the Capitol. They examined it for additional weapons, chemicals -- turned up none. For a few hours the whole complex was on lockdown with tourist and school children terrified by the gunfire. And of course, we heard from witnesses the Capitol complex is going to be re-opened tomorrow for business as usual and police say they don't believe ...


MACCALLUM: Thanks for joining me tonight everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum in tonight for Megyn. I will see you again tomorrow morning with Bill Hemmer on "America's Newsroom" at 9:00 eastern. Have a good night, everybody.

Content and Programming Copyright 2016 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.