[Lurking Libertarian]

Interesting take. Irregardless it certainly sets up easy grounds for an appeal.

You generally can't appeal based on something you failed to object to in the trial court.

[Steve_Seattle]

"You generally can't appeal based on something you failed to object to in the trial court."

They DID object to Fitz's closing remarks, AFTER they let him make them. Fitz violated the rule that you can't argue closing with evidence that wasn't introduced into trial. Fitz was going on about the whole outing theory, jeopardizing the life of a covert agent, lying about the war, etc., none of which was pertinent to the charges, none of which had been based on anything but hearsay, and he lied to the court when he claimed he was just trying to establish Libby's state of mind. He was trying to inflame the jury with unproven allegations about what Libby DID, not what he was thinking.