That this was an employee who conspired against him in a failed palace coup

I think calling it a "palace coup" gives it an inappropriate framing of what happened.

I definitely think that how the board handled the situation was very inept, and I think the naivety over the blowback they would receive was one of the most surprising things for me. But after reading more about the details of what happened, and particularly writings and interviews given by the former board members, I don't think any of them did this out of any particular lust for power, or even as some sort of payback for a grudge. It seemed like all of them had real, valid concerns over Sam's leadership. Did those concerns warrant Sam's firing? From what I've read, I'm of the opinion they didn't, but obviously as just some rando on the Internet, what do I know. But I do think that there were substantive issues in question, and calling it a "palace coup" diminishes these valid concerns in my mind.

I'm not moralizing. There are palace coups that are justified.

At the time, Sam was more powerful than Ilya for sure. But framing their relationship as employee/employer when they were both in the board seems not correct.

Sam's employer is who, the US taxpayer?