not only is it reasonable to assume that's exactly what he meant, there really isn't any other way to interpret it.

However...

Here is an earlier report from Shuster and the AP, since edited away and saved at E&P:

Fitzgerald also alleged that Libby in September 2003 "wiped out" a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson and his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, from reporters, not the vice president.

It was not clear if Fitzgerald meant that an attempt was made to destroy the note or that Libby had forgotten about it. In any case, the note was recovered and is part of the evidence.

Here is James Joyner, who was liveblogging:

"David Shuster of MSNBC, who is sitting in the room with me,  reports some big breaking news:

Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 "wiped out" a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson and his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, from reporters, not the vice president.

It was not clear if the reference to wiped out was literal or figurative.

I would note for the record that every other person in the media room, including bloggers for the liberal Firedoglake, are convinced it was the latter. Indeed, the idea that Fitzgerald would accuse Libby in his opening statements of destroying evidence, something with which he was never charged or seriously investigated, strains credulity."

Here is Marcy Wheeler, the EmptyWheel, also liveblogging:

The defendant lied. He made up a story. He told the story that he wasn't relying on any of the information he heard from government officials. He relied on information he got from reporters

VP notes-Libby knew that note was in his file. But he wiped it out.

His story was essentially this. Learned it from Russert. I don't know this. Passed it on to other reporters.

Are you telling me that Marcy sat there and missed that, along with every other reporter except Shuster?

As a bonus - an earlier Shuster report omitted some key words to enhance the Bush-bashing quality of his report and give the impression that the Plame leak was authorized:

From Shuster:

This is a document released by the court. It's a letter from Patrick Fitzgerald to Scooter Libby's legal team. And it says, "As we discussed during our telephone conversation, Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information to the press by his superiors."

But here in reality, the letter said this:

We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information **about the NIE **to the press by his superiors," Fitzgerald wrote.

Shuster has a guaranteed audience for his fantasies, but I would not advise being a part of it.

FWIW - the real headline, which the media will studiously ignore, is that David Gregory of NBC recieved a leak from Ari Fleischer on July 11.

Well, seeing as how (1) an earlier report on which he shared a byline was perfectly clear that the phrase was ambiguous; (2) no other reporter heard it the way he reported it; (3) Fitzgerald passed on an obvious criminal charge if Shuster was right, and (4) Shuster has a history of overstatement and error on the Plame case (I have other examples handy), I am comfortable asserting that he has deliberately overstated the case here with the intention of delivering the news his target audience wants to hear (and check other blogs - folks are loving it).  That said, I concede that maybe he is simply delusional, rather than a deliberate liar.  But I'll contribute $100 bucks to the charity of Jeralyn's choice if this report holds up.

And remember - this is not some Shuster exclusive interview - he sat in the media room with a hundred other reporters watching the same video they saw.  How come only he got this report?

not only is it reasonable to assume that's exactly what he meant, there really isn't any other way to interpret it.

He wiped it out of his memory.  He wiped the hard drive; he wiped the blackboard.  Yet neither the blackboard nor the hard drive are destroyed.  A metaphor.

I don't think Ted Wells wants to go mano - a - mano with Rove, not with Fitz backing Rove and Rove not impeachable on grounds he got a deal.

Ouch. That sentence could be set to music.

As for the wiped out note I bet it was one of the   deleted emails recovered, with the help of Rove, from computers siezed by Fitz from the OVP. TL:

Back to the question of the deleted e-mails. Who in Cheney's office will this reach, and how high? Does Fitz have corrorborating testimony from others who have flipped in the case?

and the line to the jury by wells that his hands were tied. Tricky... Fitz objected and wanted to tell the jury that his hands were tied as well.......

dangerous grey mail territory. From emptywheel's liveblog.  

Fitz up, I can't tell you whether she was or wasn't classified. We've taken the issue out of the case, but to leave the issue as if Wells wanted to say something but couldn't.....

...[Wells:] Judge Walton has made the decision about the parameters that I can discuss. I'm not faulting the government in any was shape or form....  

....Walton: before we break. Want to make sure about classified info.

Restrictions have been made. These restrictions were not imposed by the government, they were imposed.  

   It would also fit with Libby's "I was set-up" defense: Libby deleted the message from his computer and believed that the WH would take steps to ensure that the investigators could  not retrieve it from the secure server on which it was storeed. Thus, he felt betrayed when Rove pointed the investigation toward evidence that incriminated Libby.

Lacking such confirmation, riddle me this - how did Shuster sit in a courtroom with a hundred other reporters and emerge with information no one else had?

As to the "Karl was out to get me" defense strategy - I am not sure I would have walked that road, but...

(1) there may be a juror or two that is sympathetic to the notion that Libby, too, is just an innocent victim of Evil BushCo.

(2) eventually, the defense will want to discredit the testimony of folks like Ari Fleischer; their desire to curry favor with Karl and Bush may be a motive to exaggerate Libby's role.  No fair asking me how that explains Cathie Martin, who worked for Dick Cheney.  As to David Addington, Cheney's chief counsel turned chief of staff, maybe the defense will argue that he and Libby were rivals and Addington got a nice promotion from Libby's travails.  Awfully aggressive, but who knows?

(3) Based on Cheney's note (and previously released documents), Libby's paranoia about being the sacrificial lamb was sincere.