iStockphoto/jaroon/Salon 
 
 Oh no, Keith Olbermann has quit Twitter. Or "suspended his account," or something. He quit the Internet in a huff, which is never a good idea, especially when you're a prominent public figure, like Mr. Olbermann, who has a TV show. It's just not a good look! You come off as, you know, thin-skinned. Incapable of taking criticism. What was the "frenzy" about, exactly? Well, the term "rape apologist" was thrown about. 
 
 First, there was this segment, from "Countdown," in which Michael Moore explained why he posted bail for WikiLeaks founder and accused rapist Julian Assange: 
 
 Moore called Assange's arrest "hooey" and claimed that Assange was arrested solely because a condom broke during sex. Sigh. 
 
 That led to this post by the formidable blogger Sady Doyle, in which she urged people to tweet their displeasure directly to Moore and Olbermann. 
 
 Moore has not yet responded. Olbermann, though, most certainly did respond, and it did not reflect well on him, at all. 
 
 He bickered with Mediaite's Tommy Christopher, continued to demonstrate that he didn't know what Assange was accused of, and though he did finally apologize, it wasn't the sort of apology that involved an admission of wrongdoing. (And Olbermann did say some complete nonsense, like this, that he ought to think about "retracting.") 
 
 The horribleness of this entire public conversation is nicely described here by Jezebel's Anna North. 
 
 To be fair, poor reporting led quite a lot of people to believe that Assange had been charged with some silly-sounding crime called "sex by surprise" -- that's where the whole "he's under arrest because a condom broke!" nonsense came from -- when in fact he is accused of, in Whoopi Goldberg's regrettable formulation, "rape-rape." (But to be fairer, the whole "the condom broke" thing means consent was withdrawn, which means that, yes, that's rape.) 
 
 So, for the record, here is what Julian Assange is accused of, as per the Guardian, a newspaper that both Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore are most likely familiar with: 
 
 Gemma Lindfield, representing the Swedish authorities, told the court he was wanted in connection with four allegations. The first complainant, a Miss A, said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange was alleged to have "forcefully" held her arms and used his bodyweight to hold her down. The second charge alleged he "sexually molested" her by having sex without using a condom, when it was her "express wish" that one should be used. A third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August. A fourth charge, relating to a Miss W, alleged that on 17 August, he "improperly exploited" the fact she was asleep to have sex with her without a condom. 
 
 Obviously Assange should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and it's also fair to say that Interpol never would've pursued this if it weren't for the fact that governments are cranky about WikiLeaks, and it's even fair to help him pay his bail, because everyone has the right to have someone pay their bail -- but his alleged victims should definitely not be presumed to be CIA spies or unreliable crazy feminazis, and no one with an interest in the story can credibly claim to be confused by the "strange" accusations against him. Not anymore. Assange was arrested on an extradition warrant connected to charges of committing rape. 
 
 Olbermann's been accused -- on grounds both specious and not -- of misogyny before. He's made awful comments about women, but he also has mentored and championed fine female journalists. People are complicated! They contain multitudes. Olbermann himself seems to understand this: "I would suggest that the likelihood Assange is an asshole is about 157%," he wrote, long after that sort of comment would've been helpful. 
 
 But instead of conflating people with legitimate criticisms of his statements/non-statements with people yelling at him for things he didn't actually say or do (it's Twitter, Keith, you can just ignore those people), and then dramatically suspending his Twitter account in a huff because of the "frenzy," Olbermann should probably just admit that he said some stupid stuff and apologize for real. 
 
 This story has been corrected since publication to reflect that Assange has not been charged with a crime. ||||| You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to find the timing of Interpol's warrant for the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who turned himself in to British authorities today, curious. The charges -- "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape," according to a statement from Scotland Yard -- were brought against him in Sweden last August, yet he suddenly graduated to "most wanted" status just after releasing over a thousand leaked diplomatic cables in late November? It would be irresponsible of journalists, bloggers and average citizens of countries most eager to plug the gushing WikiLeaks not to wonder if those dots connect. 
 
 Still, as the New York Times put it, "there is no public evidence to suggest a connection," which some members of the public seem to find unbearably frustrating. With no specific target for their suspicions and no easy way to find one, folks all over the blogosphere have been settling for the next best thing: making light of the sexual assault charges and smearing one of the alleged victims. 
 
 By Sunday, when Keith Olbermann retweeted Bianca Jagger's link to a post about the accuser's supposed CIA ties -- complete with scare quotes around the word "rape" -- a narrative had clearly taken hold: Whatever Assange did, it sure wasn't rape-rape. All he did was fail to wear a rubber! And one woman who claims he assaulted her has serious credibility issues anyway. She threw a party in his honor after the fact and tried to pull down the incriminating tweets. Isn't that proof enough? The only reason the charges got traction is that, in the radical feminist utopia of Sweden under Queen Lisbeth Salander, if a woman doesn't have multiple orgasms during hetero sex, the man can be charged with rape. You didn't know? 
 
 As of today, even Naomi Wolf -- Naomi Effin' Wolf! -- has taken a public swipe at Assange's accusers, using her status as a "longtime feminist" to underscore the absurdity of "the alleged victims ... using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings." 
 
 Wow. Admittedly, I don't have as much experience being a feminist as Wolf has, but when I see a swarm of people with exactly zero direct access to the facts of a rape case loudly insisting that the accusation has no merit, I usually start to wonder about their credibility. And their sources. 
 
 Wolf links to exactly one, an article in British tabloid the Daily Mail. "Using a number of sources including leaked police interviews," writes Richard Pendlebury, "we can begin to piece together the sequence of events which led to Assange's liberty being threatened by Stockholm police rather than Washington, where already one U.S. politician has called on him to executed for 'spying'." Well! A reasonable person might be skeptical of information coming from a single anonymous source via a publication known for highly sensationalized reporting, sure, but in this case, there are a number of them. 
 
 That Daily Mail article also helped to inspire a Dec. 3 Gizmodo post in which Jesus Diaz boldy asserted, "While you can say Assange is a douchebag for not putting a condom on and continuing after the woman requested he use a condom, there was no rape accusation in both cases." The other source for that claim was an AOL News article that relied on (hey, look!) the same Daily Mail piece, a Swedish tabloid, and statements from Assange's lawyers to cobble together a theory of what happened and why Assange was charged. Rock solid! 
 
 To Diaz and Gizmodo's credit, they quickly posted an update upon learning that the Swedish prosecution office had "issued a notice saying that they are charging Assange with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." Diaz added, "Obviously, this is now a completely different issue altogether. Rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion are extremely grave accusations. This is not the 'sex by surprise' accusation that was discussed before." (I don't know that I'd go as far as "a completely different issue altogether" -- Feministe's Jill Filipovic wrote a terrific explanation of why "sex by surprise" actually is a pretty big deal -- but good on him for acknowledging that much.) Still, the notion that consensual, unprotected sex equals rape in Sweden (despite millions of Swedish fathers walking around free today) continues zipping around the Internet. One wonders if today's statement from Swedish authorities, which elaborates that Assange is accused of "using his body weight to hold [a woman] down in a sexual manner" and having intercourse with a sleeping woman, among other things, will even slow them down. 
 
 OK, so maybe the charges really are for rape-rape, but still -- the woman has CIA ties! I've read that on at least a dozen blogs! Keith Olbermann tweeted it and everything! That's got to be coming from a highly credible source, right? 
 
 Actually, as far as I can tell, the only source for that claim is an August Counterpunch article by Assange fanboys (seriously, they recast him as Neo of "The Matrix") Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Here's the most damning evidence Shamir and Bennett have compiled against Assange's accuser: 
 
 1) She's published "anti-Castro diatribes" in a Swedish-language publication that, according to an Oslo professor, Michael Seltzer (who?), is "connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner," who reportedly has CIA ties. Let me repeat that: She has been published in a journal that is connected with a group that is led by a guy with CIA ties. Says this one guy. 
 
 2) "In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter." That link goes to an English translation of a Spanish article noting that at a march last spring, Posada "wander[ed] unleashed and un-vaccinated along Calle Ocho in Miami, marching alongside" -- wait for it -- "Gloria Estefan in support of the so-called Ladies in White." Apparently, it's "an established fact" that Posada and the Ladies also share a shady benefactor, which means he should clearly be called a "friend" of the organization, and this is totally relevant to the rape charges against Julian Assange, because the accuser once interacted with them in some manner. 
 
 3) The accuser is a known feminist who once wrote a blog post about getting revenge on men, and "was involved in Gender Studies in Uppsala University, in charge of gender equality in the Students' Union, a junior inquisitor of sorts." 
 
 Are you kidding me? That's what we're basing the "CIA ties" meme on? An article that reads like a screenplay treatment by a college freshman who's terrified of women? Actual quote: "[T]he Matrix plays dirty and lets loose a sex bomb upon our intrepid Neo. When you can't contest the message, you smear the messenger. Sweden is tailor-made for sending a young man into a honey trap." 
 
 Look, for all I know, Assange's primary accuser does have CIA ties. Perhaps it was all a setup from the beginning. Perhaps she is lying through her teeth about the rape. Anything is possible. But in the absence of any real evidence one way or another, we're choosing to believe these guys? Or at least this guy at Firedoglake, who says he's "spent much of [his] professional life as a psychiatrist helping women (and men) who are survivors of sexual violence" -- giving his post a shiny veneer of credibility, even though it's a pure regurgitation of Shamir and Bennett's -- but segues from there into an indictment of the accuser's post-rape behavior. She socialized with her attacker again! An expert like him can tell you that real victims never do that. 
 
 The fact is, we just don't know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not. 
 
 Public evidence, as the Times noted, is scarce. So, it's heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.
– Keith Olbermann stormed off Twitter in a huff yesterday, after finding himself the recipient of a barrage of tweets condemning him and Michael Moore for defending Julian Assange. Olbermann had Moore on his show Tuesday to talk about the WikiLeaks founder, and nodded in sympathy as Moore declared the rape allegations against Assange “hooey.” That enraged readers at the blog Tiger Beatdown, who barraged the pair with tweets accusing them of being “rape apologists.” Moore hasn’t responded, but Olbermann did—and it didn’t go well. The host bickered with seemingly every critic (see Salon for details), eventually issuing an if-I-offended-anyone apology. Then he began blocking offending tweeters, and finally, when he could stand it no more, he tweeted, “I'll thus unblock all blocks, wish you all a Merry Christmas and I'll suspend this account until/if this frenzy is stopped.” Since then he’s posted one tweet—an innocuous congratulations to Larry King.