It is October 17, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

What happens when a United States Attorney fails to fulfill the responsibilities of his office?

And what happens when that official makes a statement that conceals, rather than explains, evidence challenging a federal conviction?

Today, we examine three terms that every American should understand.

Misfeasance. Malfeasance. And nonfeasance.

These terms describe different forms of misconduct or failure in the performance of official duties.

And they raise serious questions concerning former United States Attorney Benjamin Glassman.

Let’s begin with misfeasance.

Misfeasance is the improper performance of an otherwise lawful duty.

An official has authority to act, but performs his responsibilities improperly.

Now consider Glassman.

On October 22, 2018, he met with a group of men, including me, to discuss the conviction of Orlando Carter.

Glassman had already received correspondence from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency identifying PNC Bank’s only debt on file as a separate $250,000 note.

Not the $4 million loan that had become the centerpiece of Carter’s prosecution.

The evidence presented a serious question about the factual foundation of the conviction.

Did Glassman competently examine that contradiction?

Did he seek the underlying bank records?

Did he request an independent review?

Those questions concern the proper performance of his official responsibilities.

Now consider nonfeasance.

Nonfeasance is the failure to perform an act that an official has a legal duty to perform.

The distinction is important.

An official’s failure to act is not automatically unlawful. There must be an identifiable duty requiring action.

But where such a duty exists, failure to discharge it can constitute nonfeasance.

In Carter’s case, the question is whether the evidence presented to Glassman triggered specific legal or professional responsibilities that he failed to fulfill.

Now we arrive at the most serious term.

Malfeasance.

Malfeasance describes wrongful conduct in office, particularly intentional misconduct or abuse of official authority.

And this brings us directly to Glassman’s statement.

When he entered the meeting, Glassman told us that evidence of the $4 million loan had been shredded by the Department of Justice.

I challenged him.

PNC’s records identified no such loan.

The OCC had communicated the bank’s position.

And Glassman was telling us that evidence of that loan had been destroyed.

After the meeting, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records documenting the destruction he described.

The Executive Office for United States Attorneys found no responsive destruction records.

Now consider the distinction between an error and a deliberate falsehood.

If Glassman relied upon inaccurate information without verifying it, that raises questions about the competence of his official conduct.

If he failed to perform a specific duty imposed by law, that raises a question of nonfeasance.

But if Glassman knew that his shredding statement was false and used it to prevent further examination of Carter’s conviction, that raises the far more serious question of malfeasance.

And potentially professional misconduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.

I accuse Benjamin Glassman of lying about the destruction of evidence.

That accusation is based upon the conflict between his statement, PNC’s banking records, the OCC correspondence, and the subsequent EOUSA response.

The question of whether he knowingly lied requires an examination of what he knew, what records he consulted

And as always, may truth reign supreme.