I'm sick of crooks, lawyers and liars. Comey meant well, the speach backfired on its intent. Move on.

Wouldn't be worth the RW firestorm which is just what they need for 2020. Comey deserves much worse and who knows, might get what's coming to him if we're lucky. A libel suit would be like getting a parking ticket after causing a multiple school-bus crash with fatalities. Intentionally.

I believe we all agree her use of a private server was highly inappropriate. We also all believe she lacked criminal intent and therefore she wasn't criminally liable since the relevant statues require intent.

That's essentially what Comey said, albeit much more hyperbolically.

George W. Bush had a private server inside the White House.

And use of private email was very common back then. Who owned the server is not a significant distinction IMO.

Under New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a libel suit by a public figure requires a showing of actual malice - a practically impossible standard.

Also, he mis-represented the evidence in the investigation.

Presidential campaigns go on for years. Bill Clinton, George Bush and Obama's are all still active and filing reports.

https://classic.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do

What he said wasn't libelous; it was his opinion, even if according to accepted DoJ practice he shouldn't have expressed it publicly. Furthermore, since Clinton was a public figure he would have to have acted with actual malice, not just negligently, and that's a nearly impossible standard to meet. Also, since he was exercising his discretion as an official of the government, he (technically the government itself, since he wouldn't be sued as an individual) would probably be immune under the sovereign immunity principle that applies to discretionary decisions made by government agents.

And anyhow, how would one quantify the damages? If his actions provably cost her the election, her damages would probably be the salary and perks she lost on account of not getting the "job" of president, but that salary is peanuts compared to what she's already been making giving speeches.

Also, isn't acting unilaterally show that he was acting as an individual and not as an agent of the government?

is untrue or that they made in reckless disregard of the truth. Comey offered his opinion that Clinton was careless by using a private server for her emails, and this was not an objectively false statement of fact. Since, although it was not illegal, it was inconsistent with generally-accepted government practices to use a private server because it made compliance with open records requests more difficult and was also less secure than the government email, Comey's opinion was not even especially out of line. The problem was that he should not have expressed it publicly in the context of announcing that the investigation was closed with no finding that any crime had been committed. But that's not libel.

As to the second point, he was not acting in accordance with DoJ policy (although he, also, did not violate any statute), but he was acting on behalf of the government in his capacity as a government official - arguing that he was acting entirely on his own as an individual would be a pretty tough argument to make. Also, it's never a good idea to sue just the individual if you want a big judgment. You always sue their employer.

To hurt Hillary... at least that is the case I would make as prosecutor.

The worst penalty a federal employee can get for violating it is to be fired, and Comey has already been fired. Sometimes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 can be assessed - but Hatch Act violations are not crimes.