Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on Sunday repeatedly avoided clarifying whether his running mate, Republican nominee Donald Trump, still wants to deport all undocumented immigrants in the United States or only criminals.
In an interview with host Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Pence insisted Trump’s position on immigration has remained consistent. Yet after hearing clips of Trump earlier in the campaign promising to deport all undocumented immigrants, Pence refused to say whether that is still the plan... Pressed by Tapper, Pence said Trump’s call for deportation was “a mechanism, not a policy,”
.. “There will be no change in the principle here,” Pence said. “There will be no path to legalization and no path to citizenship. Donald Trump will articulate what we do with the people who are here.”
.. He waved off stories about domestic violence charges against Trump’s new campaign executive, Breitbart chairman Steve Bannon, saying voters don’t care so much about “process” stories.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/pence-trump-deportation-questions-227477#ixzz4IfOBBn8a
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
WATCH: The Moment Rich Lowry Correctly Predicted Trump’s Immigration Flip
We knew this would happen all along. Specifically, Rich Lowry knew. When we published our “Against Trump” issue back in January, Rich confidently predicted that Donald Trump couldn’t be trusted even on immigration — his signature issue. “I don’t even believe . . . I think even on immigration, he is really conning people. This is someone who three or four short years ago was criticizing nice, pleasant, polite Mitt Romney for being too harsh on immigration. It wouldn’t surprise me if one day — if Donald Trump, if he gets the nomination — wakes up the next day and says ‘You know what, deporting people? The best people in the country have told me it’s not possible — forget it.’” The comments come around the five-minute mark:
Deutsche Bank’s $10-Billion Scandal
How a scheme to help Russians secretly funnel money offshore unravelled.
Because the Russian company and the offshore company both belonged to the same owner, these ordinary-seeming trades had an alchemical purpose: to turn rubles that were stuck in Russia into dollars stashed outside Russia. On the Moscow markets, this sleight of hand had a nickname: konvert, which means “envelope” and echoes the English verb “convert.” In the English-language media, the scheme has become known as “mirror trading.”
.. Deutsche Bank has admitted that, until April, 2015, when three members of its Russian equities desk were suspended for their role in the mirror trades, about ten billion dollars was spirited out of Russia through the scheme. The lingering question is whose money was moved, and why.
Ethicists: Clinton team violated ‘spirit’ of pledge
Emails suggest aides were catering to Clinton foundation donors.
An April 2009 exchange between Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band and two of Clinton’s top State Department aides concerning a major foundation donor is the latest in a succession of emails suggesting Clinton staffers violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the ethics agreement Clinton had signed just months earlier.
.. Either way, the foundation was seeking special access for a donor — itself a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge Clinton and top foundation officials had signed, according to several ethicists.
.. Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said that the actual language of the pledge is “not surprisingly, very lawyerly … [and] there is an argument to be made that Clinton herself has not violated what was in the pledge.”
.. “The Clinton Foundation was taking money from anybody who would give it, and the biggest contributions were from people who had business before the State Department,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.
.. Clinton herself argued during her confirmation hearings that there was no real conflict, since neither she nor her husband had a financial interest in the foundation. And the campaign’s response to the latest email batch — emphasizing that Band was working in his role as an aide to Bill Clinton, not an employee of the foundation — similarly hinges on obscure legal reasoning.
.. “and of course many of the ambassadors are themselves contributors to the president’s political party.”