Malfeasance is a broad term that describes conduct that is inherently wrong or unlawful.
By defending malfeasance in general one would be defending the wrong doing and illegal or illicit acts of public officials. If someone is defending “historical malfeasance” (something that happened in the past that implies prior misconduct by a historical public or government official), then they are essentially setting themselves up to allow the same crimes to be repeated freely and with no disciplinary action or punitive measures. They’re essentially allowing the wrong doing of certain historical events to be repeated and not allowing people to learn from the past.
The entire reason we study history is to learn from the past; to see where humankind made mistakes and where we didn’t. If historical defenders are going to “defend” every event of history as okay (including historical malfeasance, which as an example could include the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, June 2015 which granted same-sex couples to marry, but then a county clerk in Rowan County, KY named Kim Davis, began refusing to issue marriage licenses to ANY COUPLE to avoid issuing licenses to gay couples).
You can see how this would be unlawful and wrong, therefore someone who might defend this historical malfeasance is doing a huge disservice to the entire reason we study history in the first place.
Hope that made some sense.
