Will Comey Cost Hillary The Presidency?

[Disir]

Malfeasance
The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not adistinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, orsomehow contributes to, the injury of another person.

Malfeasance is an affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful. In tort law it is distinct from misfeasance, which is an act that isnot illegal but is improperly performed. It is also distinct from Nonfeasance, which is a failure to act that results in injury.

The distinctions between malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance have little effect on tort law. Whether a claim of injuryis for one or the other, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached in someway, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff. One exception is that under the law of Strict Liability, the plaintiffneed not show the absence of due care. The law of strict liability usually is applied to Product Liability cases, where amanufacturer can be held liable for harm done by a product that was harmful when it was placed on the market. In suchcases the plaintiff need not show any actual malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer. A mistake is enough to createliability because the law implies that for the sake of public safety, a manufacturer warrants a product's safety when it offersthe product for sale.

malfeasance

Seems pretty obvious to me!

You lack integrity. It will not come back any time soon.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now they're quoting Bush people

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL The loons are trying to stuff the cat back in the bag. This is fucking hilarious

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nine days, sassy.

 

[eagle7_31]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for. He should never have placed his thumb on the political scale - and now I don't know how he's going to get it off before the election.

Translation: Damaging to the Hildebeast's chances. If this happened to a Republican, you would be one of the first ones cheering Comey.

No, sparky, it's dirty partisan politics regardless of who it's done to. No presidential election should be tainted by federal agencies this close to a presidential election. How would you feel if the IRS released Trump's tax returns?

You have a memory lapse. Remember about this time in 1992 when Lawrence Walsh indicted Casper Weinberger the weekend before the 92 election and all the Dems cheered???? Of course that indictment was thrown out later. Funny how history can come back to bite you at times. As for Trump's taxes he has not been investigated by the IRS at least not recently. I can however agree with you to a certain extent about partisan politics should not be apart of legal investigations.

 

[Lakhota]

LOL The loons are trying to stuff the cat back in the bag. This is fucking hilarious

Funny. You loons don't even know if there is a cat in the bag.

 

[Bassman007]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for. He should never have placed his thumb on the political scale - and now I don't know how he's going to get it off before the election.

James Comey understands the voters right to know, and is the best part of our Democracy and he is making it stronger

 

[Disir]

LOL The loons are trying to stuff the cat back in the bag. This is fucking hilarious

Funny. You loons don't even know if there is a cat in the bag.

You're in denial.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Comey did violate the Hatch Act, then he has tainted the entire investigation beyond remediation, and she walks.

 

[Disir]

If Comey did violate the Hatch Act, then he has tainted the entire investigation beyond remediation, and she walks.

She's going to walk anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Specifically, the Hatch Act bars the use by a government official of his position to influence an election. Notably, whether one has a specific “intent” to do so is irrelevant:

I agree, the lack of intent of Hillary to break the law concerning classified materials is irrelevant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Malfeasance

The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.

Malfeasance is an affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful. In tort law it is distinct from misfeasance, which is an act that is not illegal but is improperly performed. It is also distinct from Nonfeasance, which is a failure to act that results in injury.

The distinctions between malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance have little effect on tort law. Whether a claim of injury is for one or the other, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached in someway, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff. One exception is that under the law of Strict Liability, the plaintiff need not show the absence of due care. The law of strict liability usually is applied to Product Liability cases, where a manufacturer can be held liable for harm done by a product that was harmful when it was placed on the market. In such cases the plaintiff need not show any actual malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer. A mistake is enough to create liability because the law implies that for the sake of public safety, a manufacturer warrants a product's safety when it offers the product for sale.

malfeasance

Seems pretty obvious to me!

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful.

Yup, that fits Hillary's behavior.

Seems pretty obvious to me!

Me too, put her away.

 

[easyt65]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for. He should never have placed his thumb on the political scale - and now I don't know how he's going to get it off before the election.

Translation: Damaging to the Hildebeast's chances. If this happened to a Republican, you would be one of the first ones cheering Comey.

No, sparky, it's dirty partisan politics regardless of who it's done to. No presidential election should be tainted by federal agencies this close to a presidential election. How would you feel if the IRS released Trump's tax returns?

No Pres election should have such a scandalous candidate which causes the FBI to have to open 2 criminal investigations on them in 1 year...

...not to mention the OTHER FBI investigation going on regarding the Clinton Foundation and BRIBERY...

 

[Disir]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for. He should never have placed his thumb on the political scale - and now I don't know how he's going to get it off before the election.

Translation: Damaging to the Hildebeast's chances. If this happened to a Republican, you would be one of the first ones cheering Comey.

No, sparky, it's dirty partisan politics regardless of who it's done to. No presidential election should be tainted by federal agencies this close to a presidential election. How would you feel if the IRS released Trump's tax returns?

That' rich.

 

[flacaltenn]

The OPoster has 3 related threads on this question. . Merged them all here.
Enjoy..

 

[Lakhota]

Comey has much to answer for!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Comey is the criminal here.

 

[Disir]

Moving like Shillary.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's too soon to know for sure, but if Hillary loses - it will be solely due to Comey's reckless federal malfeasance. Hillary clearly had momentum for a likely landslide victory - but now even her winning seems questionable. Anyone who values American democracy should not cheer about that.

but if Hillary loses - it will be solely due to Comey's reckless federal malfeasance.

That and Hillary's criminal acts, of course.

 

[easyt65]

If Hillary loses it will because of HILLARY. She made all this possible. If there was no private server, no emails, there would be no investigation.