The presidency of Donald Trump has started off with a whirlwind. President Trump surprised many by tackling his ambitious campaign promises—like them or not—at a record-breaking speed. Amid his busy schedule, however, the President has made a special effort to honor the military, police, and others in service to keep Americans safe.
Anna Massoglia | All Articles
Alongside the big names on Trump’s Transition team are lesser known businessmen and philanthropists who made their impact outside the world of politics. Among these is Lloyd Claycomb II. A prominent American businessman and philanthropist, Lloyd Claycomb was a relative political outsider under the 2016 election cycle, but has already started making big waves within the Republican Party and holds the potential to be a major player in the next administration.
Though the election cycle has come to a close, fundraisers continue to draw influential figures of the political world. A private dinner on Monday, December 12, brought together big names behind the next presidential administration with renowned GOP strategists and financial minds at a Beverly Hills fundraiser. Key players in politics and business joined renowned philanthropists and other magnates at the exclusive event. Sources close to the hosts of the fundraiser held for Congressman Ed Royce along with special guest Congressman Devin Nunes estimate that it brought in over $360,000.
Amidst the turbulence of an unpredictable political climate, the potential consequences for the economy are undeniable. A surge in the VIX or “fear index”—Wall Street’s gauge of fear in the market—has continued to accelerate over the last week, indicating more volatility to come. Whether Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or someone else entirely emerges as the next president of the United States, the uncertainty around the election itself and the looming threat of more instability yet to come could be potentially far-reaching.
A recent Investor’s Business Daily op-ed by Yuri Vanetik argued that the United States should “scrap the existing juror selection system” to make way for panels of so-called “professional jurors,” salaried employees or contractors that would take the place of juries. Claiming that juries composed of American citizens are ill-prepared to handle complex issues in the modern world, Vanetik overlooks the large body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of those juries and fails to appreciate the fundamental role of citizen jurors in the United States.