Delusional Attempt to Impeach Trump Already Underway

For those longing for the drama and upheaval of Donald Trump’s first term, here’s some news: efforts to impeach the freshly inaugurated president are already in motion.

Admittedly, as far as political stunts go, this one feels as anticlimactic and misguided as a Limp Bizkit reunion album. But every movement needs a starting point, and #TheResistance 2.0 appears to have found its footing with the left-wing advocacy group Free Speech For People.

This organization — whose website design seems like a relic from the days when the Daily Kos interface was considered cutting-edge — presents itself as a “non-partisan campaign.” In reality, it champions a host of progressive causes, such as fighting “voter suppression” (read: opposing anti-voter fraud measures), curbing dark money in politics (except, presumably, when it’s from George Soros), and challenging “corporate abuse of power.”

Perhaps most notably, Free Speech For People is known for its opposition to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which affirmed that independent campaign expenditures are a form of free speech. (For context, Floyd Brown, founder of The Western Journal, also founded Citizens United, the case’s plaintiff.)

Now, however, the group has its sights set on a new mission. On Trump’s inauguration day, Free Speech For People launched a campaign to impeach him, accusing him of violating constitutional emoluments clauses and engaging in corrupt campaign practices.

Their petition calls on Congress to “initiate an immediate impeachment investigation into Donald Trump’s violations of the Emoluments Clauses and into his unlawful, corrupt campaign practices.”

“Trump’s return to the White House poses an unprecedented threat to our democracy,” said John Bonifaz, the group’s president. “During his campaign and in the months before his inauguration, Donald Trump engaged in unlawful, unconstitutional conduct and threatened more. He has once more positioned himself to abuse the office for personal profit and power in violation of clear constitutional commands and at the expense of our democratic institutions, constitutional precedent, and the safety of our country’s most vulnerable.”

The petition cites two clauses in the U.S. Constitution that the group claims Trump has breached: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7.

The first clause states: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The second provides: “The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

For clarity, “emolument” refers to “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.” And yes, this definition is probably redundant for most readers. Still, it’s worth considering that someone, somewhere, might be misreading it as “emmermonumment” while holding out hope for a Trump impeachment.

This argument is nothing new. The left trotted out similar claims during Trump’s first term before the likes of James Comey, Robert Mueller, and Alexander Vindman became their preferred distractions. Unsurprisingly, the accusations seem even flimsier this time around.

The group asserts, “Trump has refused to sell his ownership stake in companies through which he is assured to receive substantial payments from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. At least five foreign governments pay a combined $2 million per month in fees for their units in Trump World Tower; and because all five of these foreign governments are currently paying Trump these monthly fees, Trump is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause from the moment he took the oath of office.”

If you’re in the mood for irony, try a quick Google search for “Free Speech For People Hunter Biden Burisma” or “Free Speech For People Hunter Biden CEFC.” You won’t find much outcry from the group over those situations. For the gamblers among us, the over-under on relevant results is probably zero.

It’s worth noting the stark differences between Trump’s family and the Biden family. Trump’s wealth and business success predate his presidency, naturally attracting interest from prominent figures and foreign governments alike. This isn’t an emolument; it’s business as usual. Contrast that with Joe Biden, who has spent almost his entire career in public office, with only four years in the private sector — during which he authored a book while improperly retaining classified documents. Hunter Biden, meanwhile, mysteriously landed lucrative roles in industries he had no expertise in, all while struggling with a litany of personal issues.

But wait — there’s more. According to Free Speech For People, Trump’s offenses extend beyond the emoluments clauses. Their campaign lists additional alleged impeachable actions, including “threatening physical violence, including murder, against political opponents, journalists, and protesters; using racist, xenophobic rhetoric that has endangered immigrant communities; and violating campaign finance laws by offering benefits in exchange for campaign contributions.”

Interestingly, these claims lack any substantial supporting evidence. Instead, they boil down to disagreements with Trump’s positions and the views of his supporters.

If this is what the left thinks will lead to a third impeachment attempt, it’s almost endearing in its futility. Free Speech For People may not be the last group to champion this kind of opposition, but it’s doubtful any will match its unintentional comedic value.