Defending against DDoS attacks can be done, but it's costly. Small ISPs and Internet DNS providers likely can't do it effectively, at least in a way that doesn't bankrupt them. (One popular DDoS mitigation tool, Arbor Peakflow, costs about $42,000 out the gate, with licensing fees then ranging from ten thousand dollars to $70,000 or more on top of that.)
I've worked with small to mid-sized ISPs before, and they barely have any money. One of my partners actually worked for a small ISP that went bankrupt a few years back. It's a commodity business, and there's a lot of competition chasing relatively small amounts of dollars--the big ISPs make a lot of money, but small ones really don't. I've seen them struggle to pay for things like a new router. Paying for the tools and hardware to mitigate a DDoS attack would likely wipe out many of the smaller service providers entirely.
EveryDNS is basically a bedroom company; it's a free DNS service with very little cash flow and a relatively small number of domain names. They ask for a donation from users of their service, but as we all know, that's a difficult thing to count on.
So I can believe that they pulled the domain name because of the DDoS attack. Having worked for and with small providers, I can easily see a provider like EasyDNS simply not being able to afford to cope with a DDoS attack. So I have little trouble believing that that's the reason they made their decision.
I have more difficulty believing that Amazon pulled Wikileaks off their cloud servers because of Terms of Service violations, as they are claiming; if that were true, the would have done so months ago.
At this point I'm finding anything charged against the guy as being legitimate, so at least in the eyes of the public I think it's having the opposite of the intended effect. But they don't care about public opinion at this point, they're just trying to work the system in any way possible to nail this guy down.
I suspect you mean nothing rather than everything.
Julian Assange is an interesting character. On the one hand, he's obviously extremely passionate about free speech, transparency, and government and corporate openness. (It's easy to forget in light of the current hubbub that Wikileaks focuses on all sorts of things having nothing to do with government.)
On the other hand, he's also, by everything I've seen and heard about him, emotionally volatile, narcissistic, erratic, and self-aggrandizing. In other words, he seems to have the kind of personality traits that make him likely to be a date-rapist. He's been accused by more than one woman of making unwanted and forcible sexual advances, and I find it more plausible that these charges are genuine than that they are fabricated by the Swedish government, which (to be frank) has a history of not giving a rat's ass about other governments' embarrassment. The very same personality traits that make him so stubborn about Wikileaks also make him, I suspect, unlikely to take "no" for an answer from a date.
If I were a sinister government agent bent on some kind of secret behind-the-scenes plot to get an inconvenient and embarrassing public figure locked up on behalf of a shady cabal of some sort, I would be very unlikely to use rape charges as my means to that end. I'd have to find civilian complaining witnesses that I could get to agree to file emotionally damaging and difficult charges, and hope that they were willing to go through with it--if even one of those people were to recant, or worse yet to expose me, I'd be thoroughly screwed, and there's no way for me to control the likelihood of that happening.
A charge like rape is too emotionally fraught to be reliable; it would require a very special kind of sociopath to say "Sure! I'll file rape charges against this guy for you and then follow through in court." To find two or more such people...it seems unlikely.
It would be far, far easier, and I suspect more reliable, to fabricate some other kind of legal charge that would have more plausibility and more relevance--penetrating a secure government computer, say. Fake a few access logs and I'm done. Or robbery, or hell, tax evasion. Theft of services. Anything along those lines would get an arrest warrant signed, and I wouldn't have to rely on coercing emotionally difficult testimony out of women willing to falsely claim rape on my behalf.
And there's the matter that it seems, if I may be cynical for a moment, that just about any criminal charge you can file against someone will likely be believed--except rape. If you take a couple of celebrities and charge one of them with, I don't know, witness tampering or shoplifting or assault or drunk driving or something, and charge the other one with rape, more people will side with, make excuses for, or deny the rape charge than the other charge. I'm not quite sure why that is or how it happened, but we as a society often seem to extend the benefit of the doubt to celebrities charged with rape to a much greater degree than any other charge.
So no, I don't believe that the government concocted the rape charges against him, nor paid or coerced women to make up phony allegations of sexual misconduct. That really doesn't seem to fit the kind of behavior that a government that wanted some sort of plausible yet still easily-faked bogus charge would do.