Red Rove-r, red rover is that the press coming over? (w/video)

Courtesy of Think Progress, below is the first part of today's press conference with White House spokesman Scott McClellan (video here courtesy of Crooks & Liars).

You'll note that the press is uncharacteristically tenacious with regard to the Karl Rove investigation. Which is good. As one reporter points out, McClellan's earlier testimony from 2003 (that Rove had nothing to do with the whole Wilson/Plame national security breach) is "demonstrably false." Yet he refuses to revise or stand by his earlier claims, repeatedly telling the frustrated reporters that the White House had been urged by the prosecutor to not speak of anything surrounding the case.

What I wanna know is this: What comes next?

Let's be honest here: who reads press conference transcripts? Nobody, that's who. If these reporters -- tenacious as they are today -- don't write articles reflecting the stonewall and its troubling elements (that the government, even the president, are public servants and are accountable to the people...that, as one reporter pointed out, it's difficult to believe anything coming out of this spokesman's mouth as long as his "demonstrably false" comment remains unrefuted and unaddressed), given the rapid fire and unpredictable nature of the news cycle, there's every chance that this scandal will just fade into obscurity.

Read it for yourself and then watch for tonight's TV and tomorrow's newspaper reports. If it's just another day of Page A21 blandness: "the president's spokesman, advised by the prosecutor to do so, was unable to comment on the case involving Karl Rove..." then all this sound and fury will indeed signal nothing.

And what kind of message would THAT send to the kids? For god's sake think of the children.

*****

QUESTION: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.

And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.

The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

QUESTION: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation.

But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.

The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium.

MCCLELLAN: And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation — or questions related to it.

QUESTION: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired.

And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved, so why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation?