SEAN HANNITY, HOST: An investigation conducted by the AP is now revealing that top Obama appointees are using secret government e-mail accounts. And while most agencies have failed to turn over lists of these e-mails, the AP has so far identified secret addresses at the Labor Departments at the Department of Health and Human Services, including the private e-mail account of HHS secretary, and that would be Kathleen Sebelius.
Now, earlier today when asked about this additional account, Sebelius had this to say to Fox News.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HHS SECRETARY: There is no secret account. There is a public e-mail and a private e-mail and they are all available. Twenty seven, 28,000 e-mails a month come into the public e-mails, about 400 come in to the private e-mail. It's just a management issue, I can't possibly answer or screen all of them and I want people to get timely answers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: Now, while all of that may sound well and good. Based on the administration's history indifference to the fact, it's culture of corruption, how can we take that at face value? Well, I'll leave it to the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to keep all of us questioning, because when he was asked about the White House staff e-mail accounts, he not surprisingly just refused to answer. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The White House, like Congress which I'm sure would be part of any story you do on this, is not subject to FIOA, but the point is -- well, I'm not going to get into people's individual email addresses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: Here with reaction to that and much more, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Senator, good to see you. Welcome back.
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.: Good to be with you, Sean.
HANNITY: Your reaction to all of that.
PAUL: Well, you know, I've been kind of disappointed because I honestly, there were certain aspects of President Obama that I wanted to like. And I mean, with all sincerity, I wanted to see a president who was truly liberal who I couldn't have voted for, but I want to see a good liberal who would defend the first amendment, who would defend transparency, who wouldn't be targeting the press or targeting political enemies. So, really defending the first amendment, defending the fourth amendment. And now, we have this whole culture of corruption where we've got the secret e-mail accounts.
And I mean, for example, it would be a problem if they are communicating with lobbyists secretly. If they are saying to certain people that might make money off for the healthcare. This is what brought down Clinton's health care plan in 1994, is they found out the secret meetings involved people who are going to make money off for the reform. So people make money in all ways and government, so that's what we want to know who they are talking to and it should be open to the public.
HANNITY: Are you saying that he is not defending certain amendments, and if not, specifically which ones do you think he is not defending?
PAUL: Well, you know, I think with regard to the First Amendment in particular. Because the freedom of the press, the press doesn't always get it right. The press can be on the right or the left or in the middle, but they are searching out news to make the rest of us accountable. And so, I think when he targets AP reporters or Fox News reporter, particularly the way he did it, he didn't go to a judge. He did in one case and I think the judge made an egregious error which shows you that even a judge can make an error, but he did go to a judge.
But in the AP case, I think they issued an administrative subpoena which is not really a warrant, and they went after these records. I think in neither the Fox case, nor the AP case, was there any reason to go after the media. If someone is leaking information, if you are in government, go after the leaker. That's the one breaking the law. Printing the news is not breaking a law. And you'll notice, they never went after the media but they did tell the judge that they were treating the Fox News reporter James Rosen, as complicit.
See, this is the danger. Because what if they said he was complicit? I'm not saying he is or anybody, but let's say, they say a reporter is complicit to terrorism. Under current day law, you could be sent to Guantanamo Bay without a trial. This is a president who supposed to be a progressive defend our civil liberties who signed a law saying that you can be sent to Guantanamo Bay, an American citizen without a charge or trial. So, I am disappointed in the president and I think that many people on the left are.
HANNITY: All right. Let's listen to the president in his own words talking about the importance of FOIA Freedom of Information Act and transparency government. Here is what the promises that he made?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, JAN. 21, 2009)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The directives I am giving my administration today on how to interpret the freedom of information act will do just that. For a long time now, there has been too much secrecy in this city.
Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.
Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent and holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law.
Going forward, any time the American people wanted know something that I or a former president wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the attorney general and the White House counsel whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so.
Let me say it as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: Do you think that these private e-mail accounts live up to that standard or maybe do you think that they were designed to avoid FOIA requests?
PAUL: Well, here is the thing. When I hear the President speak and what he just said, if I were sitting in the audience I would stand up and cheer. Because what he saying sounds so great. What he said recently about if an American were targeted for attack, they would get due process. But he thinks due process is him making a decision and not a judge or not a jury. So, when he says that, I'm not sure he really means this. And I think what is happening is, these constellation of scandals one after another, Benghazi, the IRS, the reporters that he has targeted, I guess he's losing. To me he is losing that moral authority, the moral authority to lead the nation. Even though he sounds so great, I want to believe in what he says, he is losing that believability to the American public.
HANNITY: Before I let you go, I want to ask you. You sort of got in a little bit conflict with Senator John McCain and -- on his recent trip to Syria. There is a photograph taken of him with two men who according to Beirut news reports were involved in kidnapping of a group of people from Lebanon. You're concerned about having involvement in Syria. I share your concerns because it reminds me a little bit of Egypt. What are your concerns here?
PAUL: Here is my point, and it really wasn't directed so much towards an individual senator. I never mentioned his name. My point is it's difficult to tell friends from foe, even in Afghanistan, which we've been there 10 years and much more stable. We have soldiers in the Afghan army who are allies who shoot our soldiers in the back. They simply lie.
So now we are going into Syria, which is a mess, and we're going to be allied with Al Qaeda fighting the Assad regime who are bad guys, allied with Al Qaeda and we're going to say, are you part of Al Qaeda and they are going to say no and we're going to give them missiles and expect that they are telling the truth.
It's hard to vet who your friends are and I think in Syria, there's a great danger you give it to Islamic rebels who are going to be shooting Christians on the other side. I have a problem with it.
HANNITY: All right, real quick because we're running out of time, on the immigration bill, a lot of conservatives are saying, not enough border security. They are not supporting it. Where do you stand on it?
PAUL: It's got to have more border security to get my vote. I've told them what it would take. I have an amendment Trust But Verify that says we know what border security is, we don't wait for the administration. If they will come and talk to me, I want to be for immigration reform, but I can't unless we have stronger border security.
HANNITY: All right, we'll watch closely. Thank you, Senator. Good to see you.