Oh, Liberals. If you're going to plot against your leader ...

(Note: If you didn't bother to click through -- and read -- the above links to Angelo Persichilli's column in today's Toronto Star, and Liberal MP Glen Pearson's lachrymose rebuttal, reverse-respectively, the rest of this post probably won't make a lot of sense to you.) 

So, which version of event does one believe? The one that bolsters your preexisting opinion of Liberal unity and/or unnamed source-based journalism, most likely, but since it's possible to raise a heavily sceptical eyebrow at both, let's get forensic! 

First, Pearson confirms that a meeting of sorts between the four MPs named by Persichilli did, indeed, take place, although he quibbles with the notion that it was planned, and categorically denies that any such planning was done by Bob Rae. He doesn't outright disown the one direct quote attributed to him, but he comes pretty close, calling the one direct quote attributed to him "profoundly untrue": Persichilli you see, has him saying that "in his opinion Ignatieff was losing the loyalty of the party and Rae was "the only one the party trusts'," but Pearson offers the following, somewhat different, recollection: "I did comment that [Ignatieff] maintained the loyalty of caucus but that Mr. Rae was a trusted performer in the House." 

Note  the qualifier -- "but" -- which suggests that this comment did, in fact, arise in the context of a comparison between the two, and really, if anyone wants to stand up right now and challenge the suggestion that Rae is, far and away, the best House "performer" on the Liberal front bench, feel free to do so in the comments. 

At that point, the alternate versions of what transpired during that may-eventually-be-considered-fateful evening diverge completely.  Pearson has "no idea" where Persichilli got the idea that the gaggle discussed relieving Ralph Goodale of his "House responsibilities," which, according to Pearson, never even came up. Which, if you think about it, is at least as believable as what Perischilli reports, at least if you take past leadership races into account, since Goodale was a Rae supporter during the last go-round, and if we're viewing this through the Chretien/Martin prism, we may as well be consistent in assigning likely loyalties. On the other hand, the notion that Ruby Dhalla would grumble that the party is "not doing enough to nurture the next generation of leaders" hardly strains credulity, particularly given her near invisibility in the House and on the Liberal roster since that unfortunate business with her family's home care workers hit the headlines last spring. 

Persichilli, meanwhile, drops the direct quotes and attributions, for the most part, and retreats to the more wiggle-roomful "they told him" and "some suggest" -- which, interestingly, implies, but doesn't explicitly state that more than the four were present, which suggests that he's deliberately being coy in an effort to obscure his source, or that he, or whoever it was who passed on this dark tale of possible treachery, was lurking near the table, picking up the odd conversational fragment but not taking detailed notes of who, exactly, said what. (That, however, wouldn't explain why he would state as fact that it was Rae that organized the get-together, something that an eavesdropper simply wouldn't know -- not unless Rae opened with the classic "I'm sure you're wondering why I've gathered you here today,"  possibly while stroking a Persian cat, of course.)

From what I can see, for the most part, Liberals -- including Carolyn Bennett, one of the other MPs named -- are, by and large, echoing Pearson's lament over less than above-board journalistic practices. That is, those who are commenting -- or, in this case, tweeting -- publicly. Which is a very fair point to make, of course, but not one that is likely to do much to stop the ensuing frenzy of speculation, or do much to improve the mood over at DonOLO headquarters. To paraphrase the instantly immortal words of Tom Flanagan, a story like this doesn't have to be true, in whole or even in part (which, to be clear, isn't to say that it isn't; I wasn't there, and I don't know): it just has to be plausible.  

Alright, have at it, commenters.