Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., for one, told Fox News‘ Sean Hannity on Wednesday: “The allegations against Pete are anonymous sources. I’m not going to make any decisions based on an anonymous source. If you’re not willing to raise your hand under oath and make the accusation, it doesn’t count. I’ve heard everything about all of these people. None of it counts. No rumors, no innuendo.”.....

More significantly, Graham’s outright dismissal of anonymous sources presents a problem larger than how Hegseth’s planned formal nomination next month should be evaluated by senators, who have a constitutional obligation to “advise and consent.” Anonymity — be it through media sources or within our justice system — is as central to holding power to account as is a free press.

Consider, for example, the role of anonymity in federal criminal investigations and prosecutions. In a 2015 report on the use of “confidential informants” by federal law enforcement agencies, the Government Accountability Office revealed that, in 2013 alone, those agencies used more than 16,000 such informants, many of whom have their own criminal histories, in investigating criminal activities or organizations.......

Unlike Combs, Hegseth has never been charged with a crime, much less a multiyear racketeering conspiracy involving sex trafficking. He is under scrutiny because the president-elect wants to entrust him with one of the nation’s most critical Cabinet posts, not punish or deter him through a prison sentence.

Still, his allies seem to believe anonymous sources are worth less in the Senate confirmation process than in a criminal prosecution. Yes, the use of "unnamed, unaccountable sources" has contributed to what The Associated Press acknowledged, even seven years ago, is a “fall in the trust in the media.”

But given our historical experience in revealing “genuine insight into the uses and abuses of power” through anonymous sources, I’d like to remind Graham: They count. A lot