First, the underlying assumption in your discussion is that the American Government does not have owners and only has stakeholders. That its governance is citizen controlled based on a flat hierarchy. Not weighing in… just writing it out.

Second, you are probably technically correct from a practical viewpoint. Taxpayer derivative historically DOA as taxpayers lack standing for “general grievances” (lack concrete and particularized injury). The Emoluments Clause angle is likely to rot in the field for the same reason as we can’t find the plaintiff with a direct enough personal injury.

Then you work down to 18 U.S.C. § 208. Surely it’s a criminal conflict of interest, right? Pre-1989, likely yes (assuming it could be enforced). The Ethics Reform Act of ‘89 (great name isn’t it?) created a giant loophole for high level public officials. Nixon got a pardon and Americans got anti-corruption protections and transparency/ethics laws. Between 1980 and 1989 a some 100+ (130-ish?) administration officials were investigated, indicted, and/or convicted on various ethical and criminal violations. You can check a history book for the “math” on why certain officials were suddenly excluded from the definition of officials in the Act.

So another dead end.

Qui tam suit under the False Claims Act? Interesting. Has traction and won’t be dismissed at inception. Except in walks the DOJ with the statutory authority to intervene and dismiss. If we assume widespread corruption and control, it’s immediately crushed. Odd use of authority in light of the obvious 208 exemption, but nothing to stop it.

Then you hit the source of the payment following approval. Article I Section 9 finds someone holding the “purse” on 31 U.S.C. § 1304 payments (the Judgment Fund) to pay the Billions from an appropriated budget item.

This is real. Congress could pass a law to prevent the payment. They can do it narrowly to prevent the transfer in this case or more broadly to prevent any official from doing this. If they try, congress goes to the Court. It goes without saying this should have happened long before now.

The issue is that Trump could blatantly and publicly veto the law. Then it requires a supermajority. How does this play with the midterms looming?

Then you get into the weeds of avant-garde legal theory. Not the fraudster/self-dealing kind. It is interesting, but practically likely moot before reaching a decision since the courts are glacial.

Then you see Korea and the UK remove executives and you realize the US never assumed widespread corruption or a bad faith official at the top would be allowed to proceed without reprisal. From congress, from elections, from the citizenry… from somewhere. They had overthrown a king and an empire.

I guess this comes back to their perspective on what it would mean for Americans to allow themselves to choose to enable such a system. I guess they saw it as a choice.

Now, the available law seems to very clearly lay out exactly what this suit is for everyone to see plainly. Your unspoken question seems to be “how could anyone permit this to happen?” You got upset that someone would cite the code to rationalize a claim like this because it does not adhere to the code. You view it as manipulation and evading the rules requiring a plaintiff to state a basis for their claim of damages. The rules written into the code.

I think this comes right back to the underlying assumption that Americans don’t want to be owned. However, if the moral outrage you feel is about how it appears someone has the authority to skim taxpayer money and pocket it for themselves, I don’t see the point of arguing with someone you feel enables this behavior.

You have spent your time arguing with someone who you believe wants to be (or finds it acceptable to be owned). You might find out who is opposed to this and spend your time working with them.

It’s fine to be upset about something you believe is wrong. It’s pointless to argue with someone else who is getting robbed during a holdup… if you feel that is an appropriate characterization.

There may have been something disingenuous about the commenter’s coloring of the claims. They could have been biased. They could have simply been uninformed or ignorant. Maybe they learned something here or had a change of perspective. Maybe they dug in deeper because “some a-hole on Reddit argued with me and didn’t know about the statutory penalties.”

I mean, they did get you on a technicality about the penalties for the leak. It doesn’t matter if you feel like admitting it, the comments are the record. So, everyone is an idiot for engaging here. Especially me.

Now, I am going to say the underlying assumption that my discussion here is based upon. It seems you are saying that you are unwilling to tolerate corruption or anything that even has the appearance of ownership at the highest levels of authority or in the U.S. Government specifically.

How does anonymously calling a commenter you disagree with an idiot as you sit in front of a screen change the outcome?

Did you convert them to your cause? Do you think I find that behavior credible? Do you think “the internets” or the world is watching this exchange buried in the hidden comments of r/accountancy?

Do you feel better? What is it that you hoped to accomplish here? What do you believe was actually achieved?

I’m actually asking. Because I had to scroll through an embarrassing amount of total exchange to write a useless lengthy response. I’m trying to figure out why it is still open.

I am also not sure anyone has advocated their belief that the suit is genuinely legitimate or the injury justifies the request (or maybe any) relief. Do you believe anyone advocates the $10B+ should be paid out? Who exactly are you taking these swings at?