Rand Paul on why Hillary Clinton should be subpoenaed on Benghazi

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," May 5, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, HOST: Joining me now with reaction to this and more, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Senator, thanks for joining us. You know, you've been one of the loudest voices in the choir calling for the select committee. Speaker Boehner may have listened to you. The big question, should Hillary Clinton be subpoenaed?

SEN. RAND PAUL , R- KY.: Well, absolutely. One, we need to know who was responsible, and she was in charge. But two, we need to make sure something like this never happens again. Some big mistakes were made under Hillary Clinton's watch. The first mistake was, I think in the middle of a civil war, they should have never had this embassy or consulate under State Department command. I would have had it under military command. But so many times, people asked Hillary Clinton for more security and it was

turned down. Someone needs to ultimately accept responsibility for this in order for us to say, You know what? We're not going to let this happen again.

BOLLING: You know, and I just -- I think back to that day when the four draped caskets were at Andrews Air Force Base, and Hillary Clinton stood in front of those and again reiterated the fact that the video may have (ph) to blame. I mean, someone has to ask her that question again.

Question, the Democrats -- if they do boycott this select committee, the House Democrats, would that make them complicit in a cover-up?

PAUL: I would say what it does is it dishonors the memories of these four brave individuals who died, the ambassador and the security detail and one of his assistants in the embassy. It dishonors their memory and what they died for if Democrats are just going to say, Hey, we don't care, you know, sort of like Secretary Clinton when she came and she said, What's the difference?

Well, the difference is, is one, to make their deaths something that we remember and that we will try to do better with, but also to remember the service to their country. And so, yes, I think if the Democrats say, It's not important enough for us to come and figure out these answers, I think it really does a disservice to their memory.

BOLLING: Senator, I believe it was on Friday when Bret Baier sat down with the gentleman, Tommy Veto (sic) -- I believe -- I can't remember his last name -- who said, Dude, that was, like, two years ago. You know, we learned some other news besides the fact that he was in the Obama White House and he was kind of belittling the fact that four Americans died, we also learned that President Obama was not in the Situation Room during the Benghazi attacks. Now, we know two Americans died early, two more Americans died seven hours later. Should the president have been in that Situation Room, or frankly, he could have made some other calls? Maybe he could have saved two lives.

PAUL: Right, and really, the next question that comes to mind is, who was in charge? If the president wasn't there during this period of time, who really was in charge? Was Hillary Clinton in charge? And if Hillary Clinton was in charge, was she the one that gave the order to stand down, the order not to go and send reinforcements?

To me, one of the most important mistakes that was made that evening is there were four more special operations guys with Colonel Gibson (ph) trying to get on a plane. It was actually an American plane that the Libyans owned, and they were told to stand down, or as the order became known later on, not to go, which I think are the same orders. But who gave those orders? Did those come from Hillary Clinton? Did they come from the military entirely? And why didn't we send reinforcements?

BOLLING: Well, yes, and I think General Ham might be the one who could answer some of those questions. Maybe they'll find him. He hasn't really been out in the media anywhere talking about what happened. Senator, earlier, Catherine Herridge pointed out there's a letter being circulated by some of your colleagues on the right, the Republicans, who say, Let's do a Senate committee, select committee on that. Your thoughts on that? And is that ever going to be a possibility?

PAUL: Well, I think we should. There should be probably a bicameral, both Houses, Senate and House, coming together to do a select committee on this. And I've been bugging for this from the beginning because I think someone should accept responsibility.

And that's the question I asked Hillary Clinton in committee. I said, Are you going to accept responsibility for the debacle that occurred in Benghazi? And she sort of sidestepped and acted as if, Oh, I never read

the cables. I wasn't involved. But to me, that's precisely her dereliction of duty. So yes, I'm for a Senate committee, but the Democrats control the Senate, and I think it's unlikely that searching for the truth

on Benghazi's high on their list.

BOLLING: All right, Senator, last question before we move on. The media -- have they been complicit? The mainstream media has been fairly low key on Benghazi. Have they been complicit in some sort of White House cover-up?

PAUL: You know, maybe. I mean, there's a lot of questions I still have. I have a question, what were they doing at the CIA annex? There have been reports that weapons were being taken from Libya, funneled through Turkey and into Syria. And were we part of that? Was the whole story, the whole talking points and saying this was about a movie - was that to obscure the truth of what was going on?

We've never known the truth because all the people in the CIA annex were told not to testify. They were sent to various parts of the world to keep them from testifying. So we really don't know the truth. But when people try to obscure the truth and move people out of your reach so you can't interview them, you do begin to wonder, is this really a cover-up of something that really was different than was presented to us?

BOLLING: Senator, last thought on 2014. You're in North Carolina. You were in North Carolina to endorse a Republican for a state (sic) senate seat. Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush endorsed another Republican. Is this conservative versus establishment? Is that going to continue in 2014 and beyond?

PAUL: Well, the neat thing about North Carolina is Greg Brannon is a doctor, like myself. He's a problem solver. And I think Greg Brannon would be a great choice. He's not a career politician. And people said I

couldn't win because I was just a physician and never held office. I think sometimes it's good to have fresh blood, so I hope the voters of North Carolina will give Greg Brannon a chance.

BOLLING: Well, that's a very, very interesting way to answer the establishment versus Tea Party question. You want one more shot at it? Establishment versus Tea Party -- are we going to see more of that?

PAUL: Well, it kind of is. And that's why when I say career versus a physician -- the establishment is often full of career politicians, and he's a doctor. Greg Brannon is somebody who hasn't spent a career in

politics. I think that's good, brings fresh blood. It is a little bit establishment force versus the grass roots. We'll see.

BOLLING: All right, good. Senator Rand Paul, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

PAUL: Thank you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 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.