If proving a conflict of interest were truly sufficient to justify the dismantling of a government agency,
inherently, there wouldn’t be any government agencies.
They, by definition (as we have recently seen with the ATF), need to perpetuate the “problem” in order to justify their existance.
Proving a conflict of interest is but one step of many. Having a demonstrably superior alternative, both technically and in the law is also necessary. I've found a way to meet both those criteria. Finally, one must have standing in the case. Got that too.
Any more defeatism for sale?