After a slew of allegations about excessive alcohol consumption, financial mismanagement and mistreatment of women, President-elect Donald Trump returned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to Capitol Hill on Thursday to try to win the support of senators who will decide whether to will confirm. .
His visit followed Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a U.S. Army veteran and sexual assault survivor, revealing on Fox News Thursday morning that she has not yet decided whether to support Hegseth.
Hegseth has denied any wrongdoing amid the flurry of allegations, including a woman’s accusation that he raped her in a Monterey, California, hotel room in 2017. (That allegation is detailed in a 2017 report from the Monterey Police Department that has been made public. Hegseth says the incident was consensual, although he paid the woman an undisclosed amount as part of a plea agreement. Monterey County District Attorney Jeannine Pacioni has said her office declined to file charges at the time because “no charge was supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
While Ernst remains committed to a “very thorough investigative process,” others have drawn their own lines on what information should and should not be considered.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday: “The allegations against Pete are anonymous sources. I’m not going to make 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 all about all these people. None of it counts. No rumors, no innuendos.”
When Hannity responded that Graham, a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, participated in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Graham smiled. “I’ve seen this movie before,” he said, appearing to ignore the extensive, voluntary public testimony during the Kavanaugh hearings of Christine Blasey Ford, who accused him of sexually assaulting her when she was in high school in the 1980s. were in school. (Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied the accusation.)
Graham doubled down on that position later Thursday, posting a clip of his Fox News conversation with a caption that ended: “Anonymous sources don’t count.”
And his position was echoed by Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who denounced the reluctance of anonymous sources to appear on cable news and answer questions. (Asked whether Hegseth should release Jane Doe, who accused him of rape in 2017, from their non-disclosure agreement, Scott replied: “Absolutely not.”)
As Scott noted, Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election; his choices for his various Cabinet positions will certainly involve people with whom Democrats disagree on a host of policy issues or even value judgments, which in itself may not be disqualifying.
But it is misguided to discount serious allegations simply because the sources were granted anonymity.
First, although the sources of anonymous allegations are not publicly identified, their identities are known to the journalists who report on them. Journalists also work to verify and/or confirm the information such sources provide. As legendary journalist Bob Woodward noted in “Fear,” his first book focused on Trump’s first term. He uses anonymous sources ‘to get to the real truth’ and remains completely confident in his reporting because ‘[t]The sources are not anonymous to me. … I know exactly who they are.”
And of course, at least one of the anonymous people featured in Hegseth reporting is not anonymous to Hegseth: the Jane Doe who accused him of rape and with whom he signed an agreement; Hegseth and his lawyer are well aware of this her identity. (To be clear, there is no indication that Jane Doe herself was a source in the media reports of her accusation.)
Yet Graham may be purposefully omitting these facts, as it allows him and other conservatives to continue their campaign against the “mainstream media” or “fake news” for its alleged bias against Trump and/or the widely reported Republicans .
More importantly, Graham’s outright rejection of anonymous sources poses a problem bigger 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 legal system – is as important to holding power to account as 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, these agencies used more than 16,000 such informants, many of whom have their own criminal histories, to investigate criminal activities. activities or organizations.
Anonymity for victims can be especially important in criminal investigations of sexual assault and other violent crimes. In the ongoing criminal case against music mogul Sean “P. Diddy” Combs, for example, federal prosecutors have relied on a previously unknown number of anonymous victims of Combs’ alleged physical and/or sexual abuse (Combs has pleaded not guilty to the federal indictment charging him with sex trafficking and racketeering, in addition other costs).
Combs is currently seeking an order that would force prosecutors to make their names public. But so far, prosecutors have vigorously opposed Combs’ motion, noting in a recent letter that courts “routinely deny” defense demands to identify victims because of the demonstrated risks to “witness safety, the possibility of witness intimidation or subversion of perjury’. And that information is denied criminal suspectswho have clear constitutional rights to prosecute and confront their accusers.
Unlike Combs, Hegseth has never been charged with a crime, let alone a years-long racketeering plot involving sex trafficking. He is under scrutiny because the president-elect wants to entrust him with one of the most critical cabinet posts in the country, and does not want to punish or deter him with a prison sentence.
Yet his allies appear to believe that anonymous sources are worth less in the Senate confirmation process than in a criminal prosecution. Yes, the use of “unnamed, unexplained sources” has contributed to what The Associated Press acknowledged even seven years ago: a “loss of trust in the media.”
But given our historical experience with revealing “genuine insight into the use and abuse of power” through anonymous sources, I want to remind Graham: They count. A lot of.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
