As to the meat grinder comment,
The reference to "the meat grinder" was understood to be the Washington press corps, Wells said. The "protect one staffer" reference, Wells said, was White House Political Adviser Karl Rove, whose own role in the leak and the attacks on Wilson are well documented.
Bush has always said he didn't know about any of his officials' plan to attack Joe Wilson.
....Cheney's notes, which were introduced into evidence Tuesday during Libby's perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial, call into question the truthfulness of President Bush's vehement denials about his prior knowledge of the attacks against Wilson. The revelation that Bush may have known all along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit the former ambassador begs the question: Was the president also aware that senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame's undercover role with the CIA?
Leopold and Ash write that Wells is trying to link Cheney's note to the 250 pages of missing emails (background here). They write:
Moreover, Wells insinuated Tuesday that Cheney's note [seemingly] implicating President Bush in the discrediting of Wilson was one of the 250 pages of emails and documents the White House failed to turn over to investigators who had been probing the leak for more than two years.
Wells insinuated that Cheney's note, because it contained a reference to "this Pres." may have been an explosive piece of evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was White House counsel, withheld from investigators, citing executive privilege. Addington told Wells that when subpoenas were first issued by the Justice Department in the fall of 2003, demanding documents and emails relating to Wilson and Plame be preserved, he was given Cheney's notes and immediately recognized the importance of what the vice president had written. Addington said he immediately entered into a "discussion" with Gonzales and Terry O'Donnell, Cheney's counsel, about the note, but Addington did not say whether it was turned over to investigators in the early days of the probe.
Fitz argues that McClellan's acceding to Cheney's demand to clear Libby shows that contrary to Wells' argument in opening statements, Libby wasn't thrown under the bus.
Mr. Fitzgerald has alleged that Mr. Libby was involved in helping craft Mr. McClellan's language. But he noted that the statement publicly clearing Mr. Libby also put him in a private bind: Mr. Libby was concerned that he had leaked classified information about Ms. Plame, so he set out to construct a story that would insulate him from being charged with that crime, Mr. Fitzgerald said.
"He has got to tell a story consistent with what the White House has told the world," Mr. Fitzgerald said Thursday. "He is locked in with his feet planted in cement."
Judge Walton has been doing his utmost to be fair to Libby, but Fitzgerald's argument makes a lot of sense. Truthout concludes,
Wells's line of questioning is an attempt to shift the blame for the leak squarely onto the shoulders of the White House - a tactic aimed at confusing the jury - and will likely unravel because it has nothing to do with the perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges at the heart of the case against Libby. Still, Tuesday's testimony implicating President Bush may be the most important fact that has emerged from the trial thus far.
I would just note that Tuesday's testimony implicating Bush is not a "fact." It's Team Libby's interpretation of what Cheney meant when he crossed out "this pres." It remains to be seen whether Cheney will back up this interpretation.
Update: LA Times on how Libby's defense clashes with the White House position.
Christy at Firedoglake recaps the week at the trial.
Update: Rory O'Connor, live-blogging for MediaBloggers, has a good account of FBI Agent Bonds' testimony yesterday about Libby's statements to FBI agents in the fall of 2003.
