LOS ANGELES – As I’m sure you’ve read, over the weekend Hustler founder Larry Flynt published an ad in the Washington Post offering up to $10 million for “information leading to the impeachment and removal from office of Donald J. Trump.”

Naturally, the first thing that came to mind for a lot of people was a similar stunt Flynt pulled years ago, when he offered $1 million to anyone who could “provide documented evidence of illicit sexual or intimate relations with a congressperson, senator or other prominent officeholder.”

There’s an important difference between the two situations however, one that I think will make the Trump-related bounty substantially less likely to bear fruit.

When he made the earlier offer, Flynt’s most likely respondents were people with whom elected officials had affairs or intimate encounters, a group that was likely to include individuals to whom a million bucks would be a major enticement.

In Trump’s case, while there’s a potentially wider net being cast in terms of the misdeeds on which Flynt is seeking info (anything serve as the basis for impeachment and conviction, as opposed to sexual relations in particular), my sense is the people most likely to have “dirt” on Trump are those for whom $10 million might not be big enough an incentive to overcome the extant disincentives to reveal whatever it is they may know.

This is not to say there is information, documents, footage or audio out there, somewhere, that could be used to impeach Trump. For all I know, there’s no such evidence to be found, regardless how much money Flynt puts on the table. All I’m saying is for the people and organizations most likely to have such evidence, if it does exist, $10 million might not be the massive reward it sounds like to a lot of us.

Let’s start with one of the corporate entities which could, conceivably, have dirt on Trump: NBC.

It has been reported that Mark Burnett, executive producer of “The Apprentice” (among other reality TV programs), and some of his associates put pressure on staff members of the show to keep their traps shut about Trump’s on-set behavior in the immediate wake of the release of the infamous Access Hollywood tapes.

Setting aside the question of whether anything Trump might have said or done during the filming of The Apprentice could conceivably rise to an impeachable offense, my sense is $10 million might not be enough to persuade anyone in the know to throw caution to the wind and spill the beans.

Among other things, Trump is famously fond of making people sign strong nondisclosure agreements, sometimes under multimillion dollar penalty, should they violate the agreement.

There’s also a non-Trump brand to protect and consider here; if it came to light NBC producers were aware of some reprehensible action or comment on Trump’s part, but they sat on such information through the entire election campaign and beyond, this obviously would not reflect well on those producers or the network which does business with them.

Let’s suppose for a moment there’s truth to the “Trump dossier” compiled by former MI-6 operative Christopher Steele, and some impeachable nugget lurks therein. If so, the people who could definitively confirm such would be Russian intelligence operatives; but, if it’s true the same operatives took action to sway the 2016 election in favor of Trump, is it likely they’d come forward to collect the reward from Flynt? I think not, particularly if doing so might cause them to fall out of favor with Vladimir Putin, considering some of the things Putin has (allegedly) done to those who have crossed him.

Given the fact we’re all a bit looser with our tongues around our friends, I suppose it’s possible one of Trump’s friends might have some dirt to share on the man, but would they do so? I figure a lot of Trump’s wealthy pals have a vested interest in keeping him in office (at least until the proposed elimination of the estate tax becomes a reality) and already have enough money socked away to make $10 million sound quaint, as reasons to betray the confidence of a friend go, at least.

Only time will tell if Flynt’s offer produces any real fire to go with the speculative smoke. It’s also true I’ve merely scratched the surface of the possibilities, considering that out of the 3500+ lawsuits to which Trump has been a party, there remain some under seal and others which are ongoing. As such, it’s always possible there’s a documented bit of malfeasance which could come to light by way of leaking, or a well-placed (and duly granted) FOIA request.

Of course, it may not matter one way or the other to Flynt if, in the final analysis, his new ad leads to nothing more than a lot of talk. Flynt is a man who likes publicity after all, and if nothing else, his dirt-digging ploy has already garnered plenty of that.

Images: Larry Flynt © Glenn Francis, PacificProDigital.com; Donald Trump © Michael Vadon, MichaelVadon.com.