Done deal. I am now officially an ex-1039-TEMP at USDA/USFS.

[Samantha]

22. How about malfeasance in office?

The important point I was making in my original post recopied above was they did violate their oath of office but a Republican House would not impeach these Republican lawmakers (or should I say lawbreakers). So holding them accountable (assuming the DOJ would not get involved in pursuing a criminal action) would have to be in the courts by an outside party. So what about malfeasance in office?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office

"The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.

“ Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do. ”
—Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).


The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."

Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.

In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required."

I am assuming these representatives are from states which would not recall them and I have to admit I still need to check out your link. I did however see the Rachel Maddow show you reference.

Sam