After yesterday's scurrilous claim that the woman accusing Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape is a "prostitute," the Post now asserts that the 32-year-old woman was "turning tricks on the taxpayers' dime!" at the hotel that the Manhattan DA's office placed her in. A "prosecution source" tells the paper "there were multiple 'dates' and encounters at the hotel on the DA's dime." A "senior prosecutor" who apparently has learned nothing from Anthony Wiener, said, "I can't say with 100 percent certainty that it's not true."

The Post's account of the accuser's illegal activity at the Brooklyn hotel serves to further their sources' version of the events that took place at the Sofitel, which paint the Guinean woman as a jilted prostitute who became angry after Strauss-Kahn "stiffed" her. In this version, a "source close to the defense investigation" says, "She figured he's a rich dude, and she would get paid. She was told by the crew she ran with that this was a gold mine." These allegations contradict the maid's story that she didn't know who Strauss-Kahn was until after the incident, as a "photo hanging in a maid closet" identified him as a VIP.

After she performed oral sex on him, "there was an expectation of money after the fact," and she "remained in the room with him while he got dressed for at least nine minutes." But Strauss-Kahn demurred, and the "humiliating exchange sparked the maid's anger."

In the Daily News, a spokesman for the Local 6 Hotel Employees Union calls the Post's claim that a "squad of people" at the union placed her at the Sofitel to have sex for money "baseless allegations" and "completely ridiculous," given that the woman "never registered at our hiring hall." A job application filled out by the maid in 2008 and obtained by the paper noted that she could speak French and perform "all the essential duties of her job." A former employer at a restaurant "described her Saturday as honest and hard-working." She left that job due to a "family emergency."

Slate's William Saletan has called the recent developments a "victory for the power of corroboration." In his column yesterday, Saleton seems to have it all figured out:

The unraveling of the Strauss-Kahn prosecution is a victory for justice, because investigators found ways to check the accuser's credibility. Other accusers will pass such tests. This one didn't. What the collapse of this case proves is that it's possible to distinguish true rape accusations from false ones—and that the government, having staked its reputation on an accuser's credibility, diligently investigated her and disclosed her lies. The system worked.

Today, they have given a man his freedom. And they have given all of us hope that even when only two people were in the room, we can find ways to ascertain who's telling the truth.

Of course. The surest way to find "the truth" of what happened in a hotel room between two people is to glean it from information that had nothing to do with what actually happened: say, the woman's profession, or the fact that maybe she's not a "devout Muslim" as she once claimed she was. Semen? She totally wanted to have sex with him! Bruising? She's a hooker! Plus, the credibility of the accused is beyond reproach. Can this be dismissed this already so we can enjoy the pretty fireworks?