Why did Lavan remove even the spotted and blotched he-goats?
Ramban: Lavan took into account the possibility that the female animals may give birth to spotted and blotched offspring, like their fathers.
Malbim: Lavan was not supposed to take anything for himself. He distorted Yaakov's words to mean that Lavan will take what already has such appearances, and Yaakov will get only what is born like this in the future. 1
Why did Lavan remove even those with white marks on their ankles (Akudim), even though Yaakov had not mentioned them?
Ramban: To reduce the chances of the sheep conceiving babies with white marks on them.
Ohr ha'Chayim 1 (to 30:32): Yaakov did not want to receive the Akudim, for then he would need to remove them from Lavan's flock, and then there is nothing white to cause the flock to give birth to spotted babies. He never intended for any trickery. Lavan removed also Akudim and anything with any white, so nothing with any white would be born. Yaakov was forced to peel sticks [to enable babies to be born with white]. He took for himself the Akudim, for Lavan revealed that they are Yaakov's.
Malbim: Lavan was preparing to change Yaakov's wages. He took Akudim among male goats, so he can claim later (if it will benefit him) that this was because Yaakov receives those born Akudim. He took Nekudim among females, so he can claim later that this was because Yaakov receives those born Nekudim. If Yaakov will refute him based on the other gender, it will be a Safek, and Lavan need not give amidst Safek.
When Yaakov presented his condition, he volunteered to remove all the specified animals that were already in Lavan's flocks. Why did Lavan remove them?
Oznayim la'Torah: Yaakov volunteered to remove the specified lambs and kid-goats from the flocks so as not to mix them up with those that would subsequently be born that year. Lavan opted to remove, not only the lambs and kid-goats, but also the sheep and the goats from the flocks. In fact, he removed all sheep that contained black and all goats that contained white, 1 having in mind that all the remaining sheep will give birth to white lambs and all the remaning goats, to black kids - all of which will belong to him, leaving Yaakov with nothing. 2
Why doesn't our verse specify that Lavan also removed the speckled and splotched lambs (sheep)?
Gur Aryeh (to 30:32): According to the approach that new speckled lambs would indeed belong to Yaakov, 1 we must answer that this is less common in sheep than in goats. The verse first lists the main wage (speckled goats and rouge sheep). Then, the added phrase, "any containing any white" includes even speckled sheep.
Lavan asked Yaakov to stay because he was a source of Berachah. Why did Lavan take more animals than he should for his sons to watch?
Bechor Shor: He thought that [all] his property will be blessed as long as Yaakov is around.
Perhaps his greed and lust for theft ("Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku" - Mishlei 9:17) caused him to do so, even though it was foolish to do so. (PF)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "He removed [the speckled animals] - I.e. Lavan removed, etc." How can we prove this; perhaps it was Yaakov who removed them?
Gur Aryeh #1: The verse continues, "... and he placed them with his sons." This must refer to Lavan, for Yaakov's sons were busy working independently (Rashi to 30:30).
Gur Aryeh #2: The pronouns continue into the following verse, "He placed three days' journey between himself and Yaakov" (30:36). We see that "he" must refer to Lavan.
Rashi writes: "'Any that contained any white' - Any that had any white marking." This is indeed what was stipulated; what does this phrase come to add?
Gur Aryeh: Lavan removed any pre-existing marked animals, not only those that had many markings, but even if they had but one white marking. 1
Rashi writes: "And he placed - Lavan placed them with his [own] sons." How do we know that it refers to Lavan, and not Yaakov?
Gur Aryeh: Refer to 30:35:3.1.