Not a surprise if you’ve been paying attention, but still: yet more evidence that Trump is actually a pro-amnesty shill, from CNN:

Donald Trump expressed support for “amnesty” for some undocumented immigrants during a 2011 interview on Fox News.

In an appearance in November of 2011 on “Fox and Friends,” Trump defended former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, then a candidate for the Republican nomination, who was being criticized by his opponent Michele Bachmann for saying at a debate that he wanted “a humane” approach to the subject of illegal immigration which would avoid deporting families rooted in American communities. Trump signaled he liked Gingrich’s approach, agreeing with a Fox host’s description that it could be called amnesty.

“Well first of all he’s really talking about something where somebody has been in the country for 25 years, they’ve been educated here, they’re really tremendously performing people, and citizens, or not citizens depending — I guess he’s talking about if they become, or should they become, citizens,” Trump said. “The fact is he’s showing a lot of compassion. Now I know both of them, and they’re both very, very, good people. I like what Newt is saying to a certain extent. It’s a very limited thing, but he’s talking about people that have really been terrific people for this country for a long, long, period of time. He’s saying it’s very, very, tough to throw them out.

“I tell you, I know Michele,” said Trump. “And if you told Michele, ‘Go across the street. You see that family? They’ve been here, they’ve been really producers for this country for 25 years. They’re great people, their children are educated, their children are producers, you go tell that family to get out of here and get into their own country,’ I don’t think she could do it, because she’s a good person.”

“This isn’t conservative, I’m the world’s most conservative person, this isn’t conservative. This is compassion,” added Trump.

“Is it amnesty?” asked “Fox and Friends” host Steve Doocy.

“I guess to a certain extent, for a very limited number of people, it would be considered amnesty, but how do you tell a family that’s been here for 25 years to get out?” responded Trump.

It’s just more evidence that primary voters got suckered. It won’t change anyone’s mind now.

I’ll tell you this, though: if either President is going to propose amnesty, a GOP Congress is a lot more likely to fight it coming from her.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

Bill Maher has expressed regret for crying wolf on Republican candidates for President in the past, saying that John McCain and Mitt Romney were honorable men — but this time is different:

I know liberals made a big mistake, because we attacked your boy Bush like he was the end of the world, and he wasn’t. And Mitt Romney, we attacked that way. I gave Obama a million dollars because I was so afraid of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have changed my life that much, or yours, or John McCain. They were honorable men who we disagreed with, and we should have kept it that way. So we cried wolf, and that was wrong. But this is real. This is going to be way different.

I could easily finish my post here by mocking this notion. Of course, Maher is full of it, and next time the Republican will be the worst ever, ha ha, the end. And that’s largely true. But I have a lot more to say about it — with a bonus RANT tossed in.

In one sense, what Maher says is indeed utter nonsense. Bill Maher slammed Mitt Romney as a nasty venture capitalist who got rich in an immoral fashion, and mocked John McCain as a warmongerer who never met a war he didn’t like. (OK, he’s right about that.) This is all on the record. It’s a lovely and meaningless gesture that Maher is willing to call McCain and Romney “honorable” now, when it doesn’t matter. But next time around, the Republican will be one of the most super-evil guys ever.

And yet, I’ll give Maher a tiny bit of credit, for meaning what he is saying about Trump a little more than most. Maher has a personal reason to be afraid of Donald Trump, having been the target of a frivolous lawsuit from Trump (Trump sued Maher for $5 million for saying that Trump’s dad was an orangutan. No, I’m not making that up.) Given that Donald Trump is one of the most vindictive men walking the face of the planet, I believe Maher when he says he is especially worried about Trump.

Remember: Bill Maher is an interesting character. On one hand, in many, many ways, he is the personification of the smug Hollywood leftist. Maher is an unrelenting critic of all religion — who nonetheless touts global warming with the zeal of a religious fanatic. He is a lover of Hillary Clinton, who believes in almost all the standard leftist themes: about gun control, and campaign finance reform, and so on, and so on. Put him up against an articulate and knowledgeable conservative (remember Tony Snow?) and the conservative can eat Maher for lunch. And yet, Maher has also been fearless about pointing out the dangers of Islamic extremism. And, unlike most other leftists, he is genuinely against political correctness. It’s not just a tag line for him.

And yet, everybody knows that, in 2020, the Republican will be the ABSOLUTE WORST PERSON EVER!!! for every partisan leftist on the planet. Except, in Maher’s case, perhaps, for Donald Trump.

But you know what?

TIME FOR A RANT: In an election season, everybody gets into a lather, on both sides, and the current person running for the White House for the other party is always the Worst Person Ever.

Now. The truth is that Hillary Clinton is a bad person. A genuinely bad person. And she is married to another bad person. She should not be in the White House. Nor should he.

She is a liar with no regard for the truth, and so is he. Here is a video online, which I have linked before, showing her lying for 13 straight minutes:

This is who Hillary Clinton is. She wouldn’t know the truth if it stood in front of her and screamed at the top of its lungs: “HI, HILLARY! IT’S ME, THE TRUTH! I’M STANDING RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOU!”

The Clintons have both targeted the reputations of women for personal destruction when those women threatened the political career of Bill Clinton. Even when the women were undeniably telling the truth.

The Clintons are the prototypical corruptocrats. A uranium company would pay half a million bucks to the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary would help them negotiate a deal. To sweeten the deal, another connected company would give Billy Boy a half million dollars for a speech. Or a well-placed Nigerian businessman would pay Bill Clinton $1.4 million for two speeches, and Hillary Clinton would give a waiver to the businessman’s pal, the country’s ruler. Bill Maher these days compares this sort of corruption to the Patriots’ deflated balls — but in truth, it’s a leetle bit more than that.

The lefty hacks at PolitiFact rated true the following statement: “Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state.” That is rank corruption.

People even give Chelsea Clinton a $600,000 salary for being a rookie at a network and doing no significant work to speak of. Chelsea might be a very nice person, but she was not worth that. It was given to her because of the influence it would buy. People give Chelsea $65,000 for a speech. They do this even though (and I say this as nicely as I can) nobody really cares what Chelsea Clinton has to say, because she is a zero without her last name. Again, this is all obvious influence-peddling.

And because both of the Clintons are so genuinely awful, Republicans get themselves whipped up into a lather. I get it, Republicans. She’s awful. But, just like Bill Maher, you did this in the past, too. Remember? Obama was the worst person ever, in all human history, because he attended Rev. Wright’s church. John Kerry was the worst person ever, in all human history, because he was a traitorous coward. And so on, and so on.

And yes, Hillary Clinton may well be the worst of that bunch. I actually think she is. But Donald Trump’s self-dealing is every bit as blatant. It’s just been done on a smaller scale so far, because he’s not yet had the opportunity to be in a position where world leaders and billionaires around the world can advance their interests by putting cash in his bank accounts. But once he’s in that position, it is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow that he will grab as much cash as possible. And his having a business would make it easy. “Can I help it if every world leader wants to bring his entourage to the Trump hotels? Why wouldn’t they? They’re the most luxurious hotels around! And who wouldn’t want to give my son Eric a million dollars per speech? Are you saying my son Eric isn’t a brilliant speaker? Of course he is!”

The fact is, we do have two of the worst candidates in memory. So when each side says that this is the worst it’s been in quite some time, they’re engaged in typical campaign rhetoric — but they’re also undeniably right.

But the thing is, they’re right on both sides. And I’ll continue to say so, because it’s what I truly believe.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

How reassuring? Mmmm…somewhat. The lede tells you it’s +6 worth of reassurance. But read further and it’s really more like +4 or +5. Good enough:

A new Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll shows Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 6-point lead among likely Pennsylvania voters, who also expressed some concerns about potential violence as the tense and tumultuous election draws to a close.

The results are similar to a poll conducted two weeks earlier, indicating little to no shift in public opinion after the recent FBI announcement that it was reviewing a new set of emails linked to Clinton, said Chris Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.

The statewide survey — conducted between Oct. 30 and Nov. 4 with 405 likely Pennsylvania voters and with a margin of error of 5.5 percentage points — shows Clinton with support from 48 percent and Trump with the backing of 42 percent in a head-to-head matchup.

When third-party candidates are included, Clinton’s lead narrows to 4 points. She drew 44 percent, with Trump at 40 percent, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson at 7 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 2 percent.

Both Johnson and Stein will be on the ballot, suggesting that +4 might be closer to the truth. That said, voters tend to get more serious when they actually get in the voting booth, and people who initially said they were for third-party candidates often change their mind and vote for one of the major-party candidates when the rubber hits the road. So we may be looking at +5 for Clinton here.

Muhlenberg has an A rating from 538, by the way, and is typically biased in favor of the Republican by about half a point. So this is not pro-Democrat hackery.

Trump could conceivably win without Pennsylvania, but it’s a rough, rough road. (So rough!) He’ll need Ohio, which is realistic. He’ll need Florida, which he could do. But good luck winning Virginia. And while things are looking good for him in North Carolina, Georgia, and Iowa, it’s looking very tough for him in Wisconsin and Colorado, among other places.

Overall, not a good sign for the Trumpster.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

[guest post by Dana]

Here is “Donald Trump’s Argument For America” ad which was released yesterday. The campaign reportedly spent $4 million to air the ad in nine battleground states.

It is the ad you would expect from Trump as it casts him as the outsider fighting for the little guy against the big “corrupt political establishment.” Trump also hits at “global special interests,” and reinforces the us vs. them theme of his campaign. At the end of the video, Trump tells voters, “the only force strong enough to save our country is us.”

Hillary Clinton’s campaign will also be releasing their own “positive closing message,” which will air in the battleground states during prime time shows on Monday.

–Dana