Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Ravenshire]

And yet when Ken Starr's Whitewater probe investigated the claims of Juanita Broadrick and Kathleen Wiley he found that they were not credible witnesses and dismissed them.  "Belief" is useless.  "Credibility" takes time to determine.  Subsequent events in Moore's case provide a significant amount of supporting evidence.

Sure, so we're building a "case" against Moore based on testimony, corroborating hearsay, and established credibility of the witnesses/sources.  But, does any of that technically qualify as evidence? I'm not arguing over the principals of reason in play here, as much as it probably seems like it.  I guess I'm just being a pedantic asshole about what we get to call "evidence".

Under our current legal system, it does. And, if eventually convicted (though we all know how much a long shot that is) he won't be the first to be done up on evidence alone. That DNA evidence overturning many of those convictions has had little to no effect in changing that is sad and a little frightening. To think that two people willing to perjure themselves is all that stands between anyone in this country and a prison cell is a horrific thought.