MV TELEGRAPH

Republicans planned to use the special grand jury foreman’s comments to overturn indictments against Trump and other Republicans, but that plan fell through.

Trump’s attorneys made a stink, and Republicans thought the special grand jury foreman’s comments might give them a way out for possible indictments, but then the judge stepped in.

The Constitution of the Atlanta Journal reported:
“You cannot discuss their deliberations,” he said. “So the question arises what deliberations are, and I explained that those would be the discussions they had among themselves when there was only the grand jury in the room … as they debated what to do with what we learned ‘ McBurney said.

But if an assistant prosecutor or witness is in the grand jury room, they can talk about what happened then, the judge said.

“This is not a consultation,” he said. “This is presentation. And they are not forbidden to talk about it, nor are they forbidden to talk about the outcome of their deliberations, that would be the final report.”

In other words, the foreman followed the rules that the judge laid down with her media interviews. She did not discuss any of the Special Grand Jury deliberations or details of those deliberations.

Subscribe to our newsletter:

Donald Trump freaked out when he realized the pages released from the grand jury’s special report meant the opposite of what he thought.

Trump was not exonerated. He and his cronies may be heading for criminal charges in conspiring to overturn the outcome of Georgia’s 2020 presidential election.

Republicans won’t be able to overturn the indictments based on what the previous person said in interviews, so things could get ugly for Trump and the GOP in a hurry once Fulton County Attorney Fani Willis files indictments announces.

Jason is the managing editor. He is also a White House press pool and congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a bachelor’s degree in political science. His thesis focused on public policy with a specialization in social reform movements.

Awards and professional memberships

Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Political Science Association

The United States Supreme Court on Captiol Hill photographed on Tuesday February 21, 2023 in Washington, DC.

Kent Nishimura | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a worker on an offshore oil rig who makes more than $200,000 a year – and whose company classifies him as a “good faith executive” – ​​is entitled to overtime pay if he works more than 40 hours worked per week.

A lawyer for Helix Energy Solutions Group had argued in October that worker Michael Hewitt was not entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act despite regularly working 84 hours a week on the rigs.

“This decision could result in a tremendous windfall for workers in a variety of occupations,” said Lou Pechman, a New York City labor attorney who has worked on more than 300 cases involving the FLSA but on this case was not involved.

“The Supreme Court sent a message to all workers who are paid per diem that after 40 hours of work they are entitled to overtime,” Pechman said.

In a 6-3 ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court said the case hinged on whether Hewitt, whose job is said to be a tool pusher, was paid on a salary basis.

The majority opinion, written by Judge Elena Kagan, found that Hewitt’s biweekly paycheck equaled his daily pay rate multiplied by the number of days he worked in the pay period.

“The issue here is whether a high-earning worker will be paid on a ‘salary basis’ if his paycheck is based on a daily rate only – that is, if he works one day a week, he gets paid a certain amount, twice as much for two days, three times as much for three and so on,” Kagan wrote.

“We believe that such an employee is not paid on a salary basis and is therefore entitled to overtime pay,” Kagan wrote.

A federal district court judge who first heard the case agreed with Helix’s view, noting that Hewitt was paid on a salary basis and therefore was not due overtime pay.

CNBC Policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Helix Energy’s compensation for Hewitt does not comply with a special rule of the FLSA that allows so-called day laborers to be paid on a salary basis.

In its ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. The majority opinion held that “Hewitt was not an executive exempt from the FLSA’s overtime guarantee” and that “workers on daily wages, regardless of earnings level, are not considered to be paid on a salary basis unless the conditions set out in the special rule are met.” .

According to Kagan, Hewitt’s compensation did not meet the conditions of this special rule, “which focuses on workers whose compensation is calculated on an hourly, daily, or shift basis.”

Two judges, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, submitted dissenting opinions.

Kavanaugh, in his dissent, which was joined by Judge Samuel Alito, noted that Hewitt had a daily set minimum wage of $963 per day. And according to federal labor codes, Kavanaugh added, “An employee who performs managerial responsibilities and earns at least $100,000 per year with a ‘fixed’ weekly salary of at least $455 for each week that he works is a bona fide.” manager and is not entitled to overtime. “

“Under these regulations, Hewitt easily qualified as a bona fide manager,” wrote Kavanaugh. “As everyone agrees, Hewitt held managerial positions, earned approximately $200,000 per year and was paid a predetermined salary of at least $963 per week for each week that he worked.”

Gorsuch, in his extremely brief, two-page statement, said he would dismiss the case as “imprudently granted” by the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch wrote that the court allowed Helix to appeal the lower court’s ruling because it had to determine “what requirements certain well-paid workers must meet in order to qualify for the overtime exemption.”

“Unfortunately, this case does not raise this issue in the way we had hoped,” Gorsuch wrote. “With the benefit of briefing and reasoning, it has become clear that the ‘critical question here’ is not how” two sections of the FLSA interact, he wrote.

New York attorney Pechman, who teaches a course on wage theft at Fordham Law School, said: “This case highlights one of the quirks of the FLSA, in that liability is sometimes based not on how much a worker is paid but on who they are paid.”

Former Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s MSNBC show will debut Sunday, March 19 at 12 p.m. ET.

MSNBC announced:

Jen Psaki, the MSNBC anchor and former White House press secretary, will debut Inside with Jen Psaki on Sunday, March 19 at 12:00 p.m. ET on MSNBC and will stream on Peacock the next day.

Psaki will also contribute a regular column to the network’s morning newsletter, MSNBC Daily, and is developing a new original streaming and social show, both slated to launch this spring.

Inside with Jen Psaki will leverage Psaki’s wide-ranging expertise to tackle the week’s biggest issues, including one-on-one interviews with newsmakers. Every Sunday she will break down and understand the most complex political discussions taking place in the nation’s capital, from the debt ceiling to political campaigning to the war in Ukraine and more. In a special recurring segment, “Weekend Routine,” Psaki will lift the curtain on the everyday lives of notable lawmakers and influential thought leaders. She will accompany each newsmaker in their usual activities of talking about their work, career and personal life, highlighting a unique and often unseen side.

Jen Psaki’s role is expanding at MSNBC

MSNBC has steadily increased Psaki’s presence on the network. She is a regular contributor to coverage of major events such as the recent State Of The Union and appears regularly on other programs on the network. Psaki’s show sounds unique and has the potential to be different from the other Sunday shows.

For more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter:

There is a clear opening for a Sunday show to air at 12 p.m., as CNN is currently airing a 12 p.m. repeat of its 9 p.m. show, and the other network programs have already ended.

The network appears to be grooming Psaki as its next potential star, which MSNBC desperately needs since Rachel Maddow’s departure from the nightly program has caused a hole in ratings and a drop in viewership.

If Psaki’s Sunday and streaming shows do well, she’ll be joining MSNBC’s primetime lineup in the near future.

Jason is the managing editor. He is also a White House press pool and congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a bachelor’s degree in political science. His thesis focused on public policy with a specialization in social reform movements.

Awards and professional memberships

Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Political Science Association