S02.E02: Cobbler

[Captanne]

The doctor in the ER said it best when she turned on the electricity at the end of his bed and he didn't react, "There is something much deeper here in his psychology.  He needs to be committed."  Chuck is deeply disturbed.  I hope we find out what it is.....  Even if we don't, we're kind of doing as viewers what Jimmy did when he decided not to commit him....we've moved on and forgotten the doctor's warning.  Maybe, as Jimmy assumes, nothing will come of it.  But, as Jimmy should be, don't be surprised if Chuck snaps.

[stretch]

It's stress relief.  One lawyer plays the guitar, one dabbles in a little crime on the side.

 

Chuck wants to KEEP Jimmy down, that's why he showed up.  He HATES that Jimmy is a lawyer in prestigious firm (just like him) and on the partner track (to be even more like him.)

 

Who would Jimmy be if Chuck wasn't constantly sabotaging him? 

 

And who would Chuck be without Jimmy? That's the thing about dysfunctional relationships - each person's brokenness feeds off the others'. Is Slippin' Jimmy a self-sabotaging fuck up because Chuck keeps him that way, or is Chuck a neurotic control freak because Jimmy's disregard for the rules made him that way? A little from column A and a little from column B, most likely.

[ghoulina]

I said from a legal standpoint it didn't compare with what Jimmy did.  Meaning, I didn't think it was illegal, if that clarifies things. 

My point is, though, she still liked the thrill of it all.

\

 

Maybe that's the issue for her, though. Being a lawyer who has a great respect for the law, maybe she can get a thrill out of conning a douchey guy like KENWINS because it's not exactly illegal and he probably deserves it. (I'm sure he cons people in his own way.) But she just can't get on board with things like lying to the cops (who she might consider colleagues in a way) and falsifying evidence. I think there is a line with her. So I don't really find her hypocritical or contradictory at all. I don't think it makes her dislike Jimmy or anything, but it highlights for her how their two worlds may just not be able to mesh after all. 

[peggy06]

Anybody notice Jimmy said "It's all good" to Kim when she was leaving the hotel the morning after the stockbroker scam?

"How about some cucumber water and maybe an impromptu pedicure? That work for ya?"

 

In other news, if anybody has any more specific details about that piece of music Chuck was attempting to play on the piano, I'd appreciate it. I must find it on iTunes (or something.) It was beautiful.

 

Edited to add: Yaas! Found it! It's Sicilienne, Op. 78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YPdC7fla0Y

Version with flute and harp - I, too, love this piece.

[TVFan17]

I agree that Nacho will eventually kill Playuh.

He actually said "Our business is concluded." I think that may have been a nod to Gus Fring.

When Fring met the cousins in the desert he used the same phrase when he warned them that they were not to kill Walter White until his business with him "has concluded" meaning when he no longer had any use for him. Nacho delivered the line with a Fring-like quiet, menacing intensity

 

This is just a side note not directly related to BCS, but it's funny you mention good ol' Gus.  I was just watching BB on the Sundance Channel last night/this morning, and it is now at that point in the story where Gus has had it with Walt's shenanigans and is showing him (and Jesse) how menacing and dangerous he can be if they don't behave (one of the episodes shown was Box Cutter).  While I do think that Nacho is a good character and is capable of violence, I was reminded of how Giancarlo Esposito scared me the first time Gus met Walt.  Something about his presence and his facial expressions -- even when he was calm and quietly listening -- was always ominous and intimidating to me.  He was scary even when just sitting at a table, not saying a word.  When he finally reveals his own violent side to Walt and Jesse, it is so alarming!

 

Anyway, back to BCS...  I definitely think Pryce is not long for this world, but I wonder if Nacho will get rid of him on his own or if someone else will do it for Nacho.

[Umbelina]

Nah, I still hate Chuck.

 

Ha.

 

I do see his side of things, because these writers never create simple characters, which is why I'd follow them anywhere, to any show.  I just don't care about Chuck's side, maybe it's just me, and my extreme dislike of passive-aggressive, pompous, egotistical bullies.  (I can take maybe one of those qualities, in tiny amounts, but not all three together.)

 

To keep it overly simple, here's how I see the Jimmy and Chuck relationship.

 

1.  Chuck, first child, quite loved, enjoyed the complete attention of his parents, the "good" child, homework on time, good grades, helped around the house, never missed a curfew, a serious child who behaved himself and thus had the love of his parents, all to himself for many years.

 

2.  Jimmy is born.  Adorable, precocious, and fun little baby, and as babies do, received a ton of attention from mommy and daddy, diapers to be changed, first words to be celebrated, first steps encouraged, potty training, all of it needed, all of which Chuck had received but didn't remember.  Older parents doted and enjoyed their new baby even more since it was probably a late in life baby and parents were more settled, probably more indulgent with the happy baby who made them laugh.

 

3.  Jimmy adores his older brother.  Chuck resents him and is jealous of him.  Cue years of Jimmy not being perfect allowing Chuck to reach his desired goal of "the best child" and point out Jimmy's flaws, a self fulfilling prophesy given that Jimmy admires Chuck so much, Chuck must be right!  Chuck is like another (evil) parent to the young Jimmy.

 

4.  Chuck is secretly thrilled that Jimmy gets in trouble as a child, teenager, and then adult, it continues his belief that he is the better son, and now he gets to lord it over Jimmy, "save him" and keep him where he belongs, down.  In a mail room, menial job just as the undeserving younger child deserved!  Chuck can now act benevolent, increasing his role as the best son.

 

5.  Jimmy's love for Chuck, because he doesn't get how much Chuck detests him, and always has, prompts Jimmy to emulate his hero, Chuck, by becoming a lawyer in secret, it will be a great surprise for Chuck!  It will show Chuck that Chuck's "love" worked, and Jimmy was deserving of Chuck's "benevolence" after all.  Jimmy is so excited, he can now work along side his older brother, a team, a family, and it doesn't matter if Jimmy likes being a lawyer or not, Chuck will like it, and that's ALL that matters to Jimmy.

 

6.  Chuck is not pleased after all.  He's horrified.  Jimmy must remain the "bad" child, how DARE he try, once again, to take over his life!  It was bad enough that he was born and took attention from their parents!  WTF!  Chuck worked his whole life to be this, and now that worthless, fun loving, do nothing, fuck up Jimmy thinks HE CAN BE AS GOOD AS ME?!  No way Jose!  Fuck that!  I'll sabotage the shit out of that little fucker once and for all.  He doesn't get to be the most lovable AND as respected as me!  NO FAIR!

 

7.  Jimmy is blindsided and confused by this much hate, because he never felt hate for his brother, so how could his brother hate him so much?  He's devastated, it was all for nothing.  He realizes there isn't anything he could ever do that would earn Chuck's love.  He has no family.  He has a law degree, he passed the bar, but he never did that for himself, he did it all for Chuck.  Who HATES him and actively worked against him.  We get to learn that, to watch it happen, during the first season of this show.

 

ETA

Now I wonder about that piano music, nothing is ever unimportant on this show.  Did Chuck have a true love or a wife in there somewhere?  Perhaps someone who saw what he was doing to Jimmy, and sided with Jimmy?  Or simply LIKED Jimmy, and Chuck took that as a threat, resented it, and caused their break up?  I hope so.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Umbelina

[Milburn Stone]

8. So Jimmy, now knowing that he can never use his law degree to prove to Chuck that he was wrong, uses it to prove to Chuck that he was right.

 

Works for me.

[Umbelina]

8. So Jimmy, now knowing that he can never use his law degree to prove to Chuck that he was wrong, uses it to prove to Chuck that he was right.

 

Works for me.

Maybe.

 

Chuck programmed that into Jimmy his entire life though, as I said, practically another (evil) parent to him.  I think Chuck loved it every time Jimmy fucked up.

[Blakeston]

You have to prove Jimmy knew the story was a lie. It's just a story, it can come from anywhere, and lawyers repeat stories all the time that people have told them. The video is the creation of a lie.

 

The original question posed by Lucindabelle was about whether Jimmy would be allowed to lie to the police. The answer is no, regardless of whether he would be likely to get away with it.

 

Just as an example, I'd lay odds that most, if not all, of OJ's lawyers almost certainly knew OJ was lying out of his ass about not killing Nicole, yet they let him take the stand and say as much under oath.  No one ever brought ethics claims against them (for that case at least).

But did OJ tell his lawyers that he was guilty? I'd guess they all suspected it strongly. But suspecting it isn't the same as knowing it, as far as ethics are concerned.

 

There are a number of criminal attorneys who make a point of telling their clients, "I don't want to know if you did it or not," just so that they aren't put in a position to violate those ethical rules. Even though you're unlikely to get caught when you allow a client to lie on the stand, or you claim that your guilty client was innocent, it's still not worth the risk.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Blakeston

[Bannon]

The original question posed by Lucindabelle was about whether Jimmy would be allowed to lie to the police. The answer is no, regardless of whether he would be likely to get away with it.

 

 

You are "allowed" to get away with whatever cannot be proven, to varying levels of certainty, depending on the setting.

[peggy06]

Maybe I missed something? Why did they even make a video? Did the cops demand to see one? 

 

Regarding Kim, is there an issue with her being in possession of knowledge of ethical violations? What is her duty as a member of the bar? Could she herself be in trouble? It seems clear she has a thing for Jimmy, but her career is important to her (I'd guess more important). She's gone out on a limb for him several times, but there have to be limits. It's sad. They're good together...most times. But I think their last scene this episode signals the beginning of the end.

 

Like someone else posted, this show makes me very tense. Knowing the future, I keep waiting for bad things to happen for Jimmy. Yet a part of me sees him in that Santa Fe office, and keeps hoping for good things to keep it going. I don't want to see him disgraced. Crazy.

Edited February 26, 2016 by peggy06

[shapeshifter]

One last legal question re the episode:

Although I think we can assume Jimmy did do potentiallly disbarrable acts based on his reaction to Kim (i.e., he didn't deny anything)--

If Wormald and not Jimmy brought the video to the police station ostensibly of his own volition (claiming his lawyer didn't suggest it) would Jimmy then be "in the clear" so to speak?

[Starchild]

It's not like it's only wrong if you get caught, so "in the clear" as far as he got away with it, yes. "In the clear" as far as he didn't actually do anything wrong, definitely not.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Maybe I missed something? Why did they even make a video? Did the cops demand to see one? 

 

My take, and hope, is that JImmy, being full of himself in the moment, and really not liking Pryce, offered to provide a video to the cops.  How much fun did he have creating it?! 

 

One last legal question re the episode:

Although I think we can assume Jimmy did do potentiallly disbarrable acts based on his reaction to Kim (i.e., he didn't deny anything)--

If Wormald and not Jimmy brought the video to the police station ostensibly of his own volition (claiming his lawyer didn't suggest it) would Jimmy then be "in the clear" so to speak?

It would be a shock if the cops did not insist on learning the provenance of the video, the hows, wheres, and whos involved, etc.  No way Pryce would ever withstand any additional interrogation/questioning.  

 

If it became known that Jimmy created the video after the encounter with the cops, he would be toast with the bar and most likely would face criminal sanction, as well.

[Bryce Lynch]

Maybe I missed something? Why did they even make a video? Did the cops demand to see one?

Regarding Kim, is there an issue with her being in possession of knowledge of ethical violations? What is her duty as a member of the bar? Could she herself be in trouble? It seems clear she has a thing for Jimmy, but her career is important to her (I'd guess more important). She's gone out on a limb for him several times, but there have to be limits. It's sad. They're good together...most times. But I think their last scene this episode signals the beginning of the end.

Like someone else posted, this show makes me very tense. Knowing the future, I keep waiting for bad things to happen for Jimmy. Yet a part of me sees him in that Santa Fe office, and keeps hoping for good things to keep it going. I don't want to see him disgraced. Crazy.

Yes, I often forget what Jimmy's future holds. Sometimes I view it like one of those movies where a character goes back in time and has a chance to redo his life.

In the beginning, I was anxious to see him turn into Saul. Now I want to see him stay Jimmy.

[Hanahope]

But did OJ tell his lawyers that he was guilty? I'd guess they all suspected it strongly. But suspecting it isn't the same as knowing it, as far as ethics are concerned.

 

There are a number of criminal attorneys who make a point of telling their clients, "I don't want to know if you did it or not," just so that they aren't put in a position to violate those ethical rules. Even though you're unlikely to get caught when you allow a client to lie on the stand, or you claim that your guilty client was innocent, it's still not worth the risk.

 

 

Most likely OJ never did admit it to anyone, at least in those words, which yes, gives the attorneys plausible deniability, which is all that really matters.

[peggy06]

Yes, I often forget what Jimmy's future holds. Sometimes I view it like one of those movies where a character goes back in time and has a chance to redo his life.

In the beginning, I was anxious to see him turn into Saul. Now I want to see him stay Jimmy.

You put it perfectly - that's how I am feeling, too.

 

It occurred to me that while Jimmy was making up the squat cobbler story, and even when he made the crack about "You're going to have to make a video," it never crossed my mind that he was doing anything wrong or illegal. That's how well Odenkirk and the writers are selling this character. Vince Gilligan, your shows are detrimental to law-abiding viewers!

[ShadowFacts]

 

I'm in the minority about squat cobbling.  I think Odenkirk is the shit and the delivery of those lines is masterful.  Content, meh.  I was trying to figure out why it was bothersome and all I could come up with is that detectives are kind of skilled at, not necessarily uncovering the lie, but knowing when the liar is lying.  And there's one part in his explanation where it's clear he's making it up as he goes along.  He does a telltale thing like he pauses (presumably to determine his level of credibility) and one of the detectives say:  yeah? and he says yeah and furthermore.......  It irked me, truth has no theatrical breaks and they're trained to know that.   Maybe we're supposed to go along with them enjoying his telling it so much that they forgive the method but even a gullible character such as me said self, because I call myself self, that right there is the spot where they needed to sideye him, hard.   I can also see him forgiven many details others would be scrutinized more closely for.  Value of charisma, I spose.

 

I'm with you on this, I thought it was too over-the-top.  And I think Jimmy must have thought they might not be buying what he was selling, thus having his dopey client make the actual video.  He really didn't need to go to that trouble, though, did he? Plus, won't the police be wanting to know the name of the "patron"?  If they really wanted to follow up on any of that nonsense at all--more likely they'd check out his employment.

 

 

Now I wonder about that piano music, nothing is ever unimportant on this show.  Did Chuck have a true love or a wife in there somewhere?  Perhaps someone who saw what he was doing to Jimmy, and sided with Jimmy?  Or simply LIKED Jimmy, and Chuck took that as a threat, resented it, and caused their break up?  I hope so.

 

I believe Chuck wears a wedding ring.  There is not a wife in sight, or mentioned. So there's a tale of woe yet to be told.

[Ohwell]

I think the reason Jimmy went on and on about the squat cobbler story is not because he thought the police thought he was lying; it was because he wanted to give the impression that he was uncomfortable talking about something that was so embarrassing to his client.

[RCharter]

Nacho's line about the Hummer looking like a school bus for 6 year old pimps was hilarious.  I like Nacho even though he is an asshole, and I like his sweet father too.  Wonder how little he knows about Nacho's business.

 

Poor Playah!

 

If Kim took issue with Jimmy making the video, how come she didn't have a problem with him lying to the police about how Playah came into the money?  Its one thing to just say "I don't know" or "its personal" but Jimmy clearly just made something up, which is probably hindering an investigation or something.  I think she wants to see good things for Jimmy and was disappointed that there was something that could concretely link him with a lie.  

 

Chuck is a perfect villain.  When Jimmy turns to Saul, Chuck will not take credit for any of it, and he will be the first to say that this is just Jimmy's nature and that Jimmy could never be anything more.

Maybe I missed something? Why did they even make a video? Did the cops demand to see one? 

 

Regarding Kim, is there an issue with her being in possession of knowledge of ethical violations? What is her duty as a member of the bar? Could she herself be in trouble? It seems clear she has a thing for Jimmy, but her career is important to her (I'd guess more important). She's gone out on a limb for him several times, but there have to be limits. It's sad. They're good together...most times. But I think their last scene this episode signals the beginning of the end.

 

Like someone else posted, this show makes me very tense. Knowing the future, I keep waiting for bad things to happen for Jimmy. Yet a part of me sees him in that Santa Fe office, and keeps hoping for good things to keep it going. I don't want to see him disgraced. Crazy.

Under the ABA I believe you have an ethical duty to report violations by other attorneys.  But Jimmy was in violation once he made up a story and told the cops, she had no issue with that.

[shapeshifter]

Under the ABA I believe you have an ethical duty to report violations by other attorneys.  But Jimmy was in violation once he made up a story and told the cops, she had no issue with that.

Or maybe she was caught up in the hilarity of Jimmy's story until the video became real and tangible? She probably would have called him on the lying eventually, right?

[ketose]

Defense lawyers have a wide latitude to propose alternative theories of events. If Jimmy were careful and said, "Do you guys want to see a pie video?" instead of "Do you want to see one of the videos he made?" he could argue that he showed the cops a video of the guy sitting in a pie as an example of how it works. If instead, he claimed that it was a video made in the past, he would be falsifying evidence to prove something that didn't happen.

 

Kim may also not be happy that Jimmy told her this because she would have a duty to testify to that falsehood. Being a fellow lawyer, she doesn't have to report it now because it might be considered a consultation. Besides, the police have nothing but suspicion and Jimmy was playing on the fact that they probably didn't want to deal with a bunch of perverts sitting in pies to get them to close the investigation.

[Ohwell]

I don't know how many younguns watch this show, but now I have visions of drunken frat guys making squat cobbler videos. 

[RCharter]

Maybe.

 

Chuck programmed that into Jimmy his entire life though, as I said, practically another (evil) parent to him.  I think Chuck loved it every time Jimmy fucked up.

^^This all the livelong day.  I think Chuck's world depends on being better than Jimmy.  I think Chuck's BS about not helping Jimmy again when he got into trouble was just that.....BS.  He gets pleasure out of lording it over Jimmy every chance he gets.  He can muster up some happiness for Jimmy as long as Jimmy is WELL below him.  He could be happy for Jimmy having a job, as long as it was in the mail room, so Chuck could be seen as the amazing lawyer and could lord it over Jimmy.  I think Chuck needs Jimmy more than Jimmy needs Chuck.  There was no need for Chuck to go to the office for that meeting, he did so for the sole purpose of fucking with Jimmy and trying to get him off track.  Chuck needs Jimmy to fail, and he will be the first to cluck his tongue and say "geez, well, what can you expect, thats just the way Jimmy is"

[RCharter]

If it was proven that Jimmy was involved in making the video he would be in big trouble. It might be difficult to prove, but it is something that can potentially be proven.

Proving that Jimmy made up the squat cobbler as opposed to him being told the lie by Pryce would be nearly impossible. It would pretty much take a recording of him confessing or a credible 3rd party saying he confessed to the lie.

I also think that many lawyers probably ignore the semantics about pretending to not know their clients are lying and openly help them come up with lies. So that part might not offend Kim. But, going the next step and manufacturing fake evidence could be a line she cannot condone crossing.

You need only have Pryce saying "I never told him anything like that" and Jimmy saying "he totally told me that" and everyone looking at Pryce and realizing that he isn't the sort of guy to make up that kind of a story. If Pryce ever tells his story, he is telling the WHOLE story, which starts from "I had no idea about squat cobbler and I never told Jimmy anything about that" I don't think plausible deniability necessarily works there.  I actually think lawyers may lead their clients, but I doubt many of them actually make up a story.  

 

The entire situation, Playah's testimony, and the fact that Jimmy helped in the video would all point towards it being Jimmy's lie from the very start.

[RCharter]

Evidence is a gray area in the law - that is why there are so many exceptions to evidence that there are actual colored flowcharts on the internet for law students to study.

 

But I am with you 100% on the Jimmy-on-the-show vs. Jimmy-in-real-life.  I don;t know if it would be worse or better if we didn't know where he will end up.

There are exceptions to the admissibility of evidence, but in the context, evidence isn't really a grey area.  Something is evidence if it tends to prove or disprove a material fact in a case.  In this case, Jimmy's lies and the videotape are evidence because they would tend to prove that Playah was involved in something less than legal to fund his lifestyle and that there was another reason for the break in.

[RCharter]

Good ep. Loved Mike's scene with Nacho (and his bringing up the name Tuco). Then when Pryce is there handing over his Hummer... That was great, esp when Nacho lets him know that the car is going to a chop shop.

 

Of course Jimmy telling the cops about the Squat Cobbler was a big highlight. 

 

I hate Chuck as much as the next person, but boy does Michael McKean play him well. BTW, I was wondering why he didn't sit in the head chair which Howard set for him. Maybe he was trying to appear to be a humble guy but not sitting at the head of the table, but of course we know that he is anything but.

Oh yes, it was very "oh don't mind me while I sit here crunching around in my tin foil suit."

 

So is it not obstructing Justice jus to lie to the police? Kim seemed to find that part of the story hilarious.

It is, and I don't really buy plausible deniability -- because I don't see how it would apply.  Yes, Jimmy can say "Playah told me that, I didn't make up anything"  but he can also say "I have no idea how that video came up, Playah gave it to me."  It would always likely come down to a matter of which version of the story is most believable.  It would not be Jimmy's story, because even the cops took a look at Playah and were like "this guy?"  So, everything Jimmy did was at least an ethical violation.  I guess the videotape seemed much more concrete than the words to Kim, but its all pretty "bad" in that vein.

[Bryce Lynch]

Oh yes, it was very "oh don't mind me while I sit here crunching around in my tin foil suit."

It is, and I don't really buy plausible deniability -- because I don't see how it would apply. Yes, Jimmy can say "Playah told me that, I didn't make up anything" but he can also say "I have no idea how that video came up, Playah gave it to me." It would always likely come down to a matter of which version of the story is most believable. It would not be Jimmy's story, because even the cops took a look at Playah and were like "this guy?" So, everything Jimmy did was at least an ethical violation. I guess the videotape seemed much more concrete than the words to Kim, but its all pretty "bad" in that vein.

It would be practically impossible to prove who came up with the squat cobbler story and I think the lawyer would always get the benefit of the doubt over the suspect.

It might be possible to prove Jimmy was involved in the video. Perhaps a hidden date stamp or some other clue in the video shows the date it was made. Then, they interview the bakery owner who says that Jimmy bought 5 pies on the day of the filming and the salesman at the electronics store who sold him the camera.

Plus there would be no motivation for Pryce to say Jimmy made up squat cobbler if the story stuck and no charges were filed.

But if the video was proven to be a fraud, Pryce would have more reason to try to implicate Jimmy.

Still, I think the main reason Kim was much more troubled by the video is that most defense lawyers probably routinely dance on the line between ethical conduct and helping their clients lie.

I would imagine they use a lot of hypotheticals like "If you did it...." or "Do you think it is possible someone who looked like you might have been seen in the victim's neighborhood while you were home reading the Bible?" or saying. "I once had a client...and this is what he told the police."

Kim might have seen directly making up the lie as doing the same thing, but dismissing with the pretense and hypocrisy.

But actually manufacturing fake evidence is crossing a whole other line.

[RCharter]

It would be practically impossible to prove who came up with the squat cobbler story and I think the lawyer would always get the benefit of the doubt over the suspect.

It might be possible to prove Jimmy was involved in the video. Perhaps a hidden date stamp or some other clue in the video shows the date it was made. Then, they interview the bakery owner who says that Jimmy bought 5 pies on the day of the filming and the salesman at the electronics store who sold him the camera.

Plus there would be no motivation for Pryce to say Jimmy made up squat cobbler if the story stuck and no charges were filed.

But if the video was proven to be a fraud, Pryce would have more reason to try to implicate Jimmy.

Still, I think the main reason Kim was much more troubled by the video is that most defense lawyers probably routinely dance on the line between ethical conduct and helping their clients lie.

I would imagine they use a lot of hypotheticals like "If you did it...." or "Do you think it is possible someone who looked like you might have been seen in the victim's neighborhood while you were home reading the Bible?" or saying. "I once had a client...and this is what he told the police."

Kim might have seen directly making up the lie as doing the same thing, but dismissing with the pretense and hypocrisy.

But actually manufacturing fake evidence is crossing a whole other line.

The problem is in what you consider "proof."  "Proof" could be a Pryce's testimony that he simply never told Jimmy any of the squat cobbler story.  If a jury believes that Pryce didn't tell him the story and the cops aren't lying, it means that Jimmy came up with the story and simply lied.  "Proof" can be simply taking a look at the situation and figuring that Pryce's story makes more sense, and he is a more believable witness.  

 

A hidden date stamp only proves when the video was made, not that Jimmy was involved.  Proving Jimmy purchased a camera on a particular day (and this is assuming you find the camera, and that Jimmy just purchased it for this purpose and didn't already have access to a camera) would not really prove anything, nor would finding out that Jimmy purchased pies (again, from where?)  It would be the same type of evidence that Pryce's testimony would be.

 

There is no motivation for Pryce to ever speak about the video or the testimony if the story stuck.  

 

There is no real line between faking evidence and faking evidence.  A story that you fabricate is also evidence.  Most attorneys do take their ethical duties seriously, maybe because there are so many sanctions for not doing so.  I think if she was upset about the video she should have been equally upset about lying to the authorities.  

[Umbelina]

Pryce is so a dead man...

[Auntie Anxiety]

Mike was a cop.  He knew this whole thing was shady and that's why he figured he'd better call Jimmy (hehe), someone with some moral flexibility.  So of course Kim got weirded out when she heard the details.

 

Something that someone will be able to answer and that I am too lazy to look into:  Was Kim at the law firm doing scut work when Jimmy was working in the mailroom?  Why do I vaguely remember her working in the copy center?  If that is the case, then she would have been there in the capacity of an attorney for how long?  Just trying to understand the timeline here.....

[RCharter]

Mike was a cop.  He knew this whole thing was shady and that's why he figured he'd better call Jimmy (hehe), someone with some moral flexibility.  So of course Kim got weirded out when she heard the details.

 

Something that someone will be able to answer and that I am too lazy to look into:  Was Kim at the law firm doing scut work when Jimmy was working in the mailroom?  Why do I vaguely remember her working in the copy center?  If that is the case, then she would have been there in the capacity of an attorney for how long?  Just trying to understand the timeline here.....

She looked like she was doing basic case research....stuck in a small room with a computer in the early 2000's.  But I don't know for sure.  For some reason I got the impression she was either a very new attorney, or she was waiting on bar results or something along that line, but I can't remember why now.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Given how we've seen HHM operate, my belief is that Kim was a diversity hire.  They think they've found a woman who won't get all uppity and who is at least competent enough to do scut work.  Has she brought in a single client?  Howard has always been quite dismissive of her and she was never a threat to him.  Good ol' boys bein' good 'ol boys.

[ketose]

Damn show. I was looking at pie today and I kept thinking "Dutch Apple Ass."

[Clanstarling]

She looked like she was doing basic case research....stuck in a small room with a computer in the early 2000's.  But I don't know for sure.  For some reason I got the impression she was either a very new attorney, or she was waiting on bar results or something along that line, but I can't remember why now.

IIRC she said at one point that the firm had helped put her through law school. Whether it was because they actively recruited and championed her, or just had paid education benefits like some firms, I don't know.  I think when Jimmy started, both of them were probably at low level jobs. Jimmy's was, no doubt, lower than hers.

[RCharter]

Damn show. I was looking at pie today and I kept thinking "Dutch Apple Ass."

 

Today I was thinking again about what would have put Kim over the edge.  The more I think about it, the more I think it was the fact that she was eating the pie.  The pie that could have possibly been used for some squat cobbling.  Its one thing to hear about squat cobbling, its probably even one thing to hear about fabricated evidence.  But boy, it has to really bring it home when you're eating squat cobble pie!  Even a prop squat cobble pie!

[Quilt Fairy]

Most likely OJ never did admit it to anyone, at least in those words, which yes, gives the attorneys plausible deniability, which is all that really matters.

 

 

You need only have Pryce saying "I never told him anything like that" and Jimmy saying "he totally told me that" and everyone looking at Pryce and realizing that he isn't the sort of guy to make up that kind of a story. If Pryce ever tells his story, he is telling the WHOLE story, which starts from "I had no idea about squat cobbler and I never told Jimmy anything about that" I don't think plausible deniability necessarily works there.  I actually think lawyers may lead their clients, but I doubt many of them actually make up a story.  

 

The entire situation, Playah's testimony, and the fact that Jimmy helped in the video would all point towards it being Jimmy's lie from the very start.

We actually don't know what Pryce told Jimmy. There is no scene where they talk. We go from Mike's "Are you still morally flexible?" call to Jimmy and Pryce walking into the police station.

[RCharter]

We actually don't know what Pryce told Jimmy. There is no scene where they talk. We go from Mike's "Are you still morally flexible?" call to Jimmy and Pryce walking into the police station.

I'm going to say its safe to assume that Pryce didn't tell Jimmy that he was squat cobbling and that Jimmy made it up.  Which I think he said to Kim when they were eating the pie, as she asked if he just came out with all that from off the top of his head.

 

But yes, I suppose it is not impossible that Pryce told Jimmy that he was squat cobbling for some dude who paid him money for it.  I think its highly improbable given who Jimmy is, who Pryce is and the fact that Pryce didn't seem to think he needed a cover story other than "well I found my cards so there is no case!"

[ShadowFacts]

 

There is no real line between faking evidence and faking evidence.  A story that you fabricate is also evidence.  Most attorneys do take their ethical duties seriously, maybe because there are so many sanctions for not doing so.  I think if she was upset about the video she should have been equally upset about lying to the authorities.

She should have been at least a little squeamish about him lying to the cops.  But we've seen her being a bit of a risk-taker herself in the tequila-swilling con.  Signing an investment contract under a false identity might not be a crime, but it's a little more than just having a fun evening at a hotel bar.  I don't know if she will be one of the two ex-wives Saul mentioned in BB, but maybe she does do something he asks her to and ends up under investigation or disbarred. 

[RCharter]

She should have been at least a little squeamish about him lying to the cops.  But we've seen her being a bit of a risk-taker herself in the tequila-swilling con.  Signing an investment contract under a false identity might not be a crime, but it's a little more than just having a fun evening at a hotel bar.  I don't know if she will be one of the two ex-wives Saul mentioned in BB, but maybe she does do something he asks her to and ends up under investigation or disbarred. 

I think if she was going to get upset about the video, she should have been upset about the lies.  BUT now that I think on it, I think it might have been so much more real since she was eating the pies.  I wonder if that just didn't make it a little more real for her.  I don't hate Kim the way I hated Skyler.  Because, I sincerely think she wants what she thinks is best for Jimmy.  You can tell that the job at Davis & Main is her dream job, but she isn't jealous of Jimmy, just genuinely happy for him and not wanting him to fuck it up.

 

The investment contract I think would be more of a grey area.  It certainly is unethical, but criminal....I don't know...contract law doesn't often intersect with criminal law as far as I know.  I guess maybe simple theft by fraud?  But the man didn't buy them the drink because of the contract...so I don't know.  And the duties that would fall under IMO seem more gray and open to interpretation (although because they are so subjective it could easily land her in trouble).  Although, the point that if she has a problem with unethical behavior she should have had a problem with the contract/rum thing is a good point.

 

Oh, totally forgot Saul had two ex-wives...interesting!

[MaryPatShelby]

The metronome metaphor was genius. 

I'm as dense as, well, a thing that is really dense, so could someone please explain the metronome metaphor?

[BradandJanet]

I'm as dense as, well, a thing that is really dense, so could someone please explain the metronome metaphor?

 

Well, since I brought it up, I'll give my take on it. Nothing in Vince Gilligan's narrative world ever seems random. The loudly ticking metronome leads into the episode, and the episode is about freedom and control, both from Chuck's and Jimmy's viewpoints. The metronome keeps the pianist to a measured beat; we see Chuck's frustration when he can't play the piece perfectly. He can't seem to control Jimmy either. Jimmy falls in and out of step.

 

After a childhood of somewhat unsuccessful piano lessons, a ticking metronome still makes me nervous. I thought the image was a wonderful choice for the conflict to follow.

 

Or--I'm just reading too much into it.

[ShadowFacts]

I saw an interview somewhere where the producers said that the show is actually two shows, Saul's and Mike's.  I think it's interesting that just as Jimmy isn't yet Saul, Mike isn't yet the Mike we (many of us) know he ends up as.  He is still showing some humanity and is not completely hardened and pragmatic.  It probably would have been best for him not to intervene on Pryce's idiocy and steer clear of Nacho altogether.  Yet he tries to get that nimrod out of a jam. 

[Captanne]

I'm not sure how altruistic Mike is -- he made it pretty clear that he's getting Pryce off of the hook because it could come back on him.  He's not doing it to be kind.  I think he realizes protecting his own interests is part of doing business if he chooses to get in the "protection racket" the way he has.  (And he has done so to provide for his daughter-in-law and granddaughter.)

[Dobian]

Great nuanced episode.  Chuck's frustration at the piano, then putting on his foil-lined suit jacket to come into the office.  The ominous turning off of the lights during Jimmy's moment in the spotlight as a portent of Chuck's arrival.  Kim's reassurance to Jimmy (I love Kim) to help him hold it together.  Does Jimmy take Mike's job because Chuck pushed him over the edge, or is Chuck right about Jimmy still being Slippin' Jimmy?  I think it's some of both.  I think that is part of Jimmy's core nature, but Chuck passive-aggressively helps to draw it out.  Because I think deep down Chuck despises Jimmy and wants to undermine him and punish him.

 

I liked Nacho's honest auto upholsterer uncle.  And the no-nonsense way Mike came to terms with Nacho was just so 'Mike'.  Jimmy with the cops was hilarious, it was total Saul.  But hearing Kim scold him at the end was almost heartbreaking.  She's made it clear she will only go so far to turn a blind eye to his shenanigans, and if he blows it with the opportunities he's been given he's going to lose her too.  And you know this is inevitable, so it's sad.

[RCharter]

I'm not sure how altruistic Mike is -- he made it pretty clear that he's getting Pryce off of the hook because it could come back on him.  He's not doing it to be kind.  I think he realizes protecting his own interests is part of doing business if he chooses to get in the "protection racket" the way he has.  (And he has done so to provide for his daughter-in-law and granddaughter.)

True, but perhaps it might have been easier for Mike to make Playah "disappear."  It doesn't seem like he has anyone in his life, his father is gone, I'm sure he wasn't picking up any bikini clad women in the H2 (with dual temperature control!).  As long as Playah is alive, he can blow down the entire house of cards, with Mike, Nacho, Tuco, and Jimmy.  So, I don't know.....

[Captanne]

I don't see Mike killing anyone who hasn't hurt him or his family.  I think he's very realistic about his new line of work but I also think he's a fair man.

 

Plus, the whole idea of taking care of Pryce's fuck up is to prevent blowback on himself.  If he killed Pryce he'd be actually increasing his vulnerability.  He'd still have Nacho, et al, after him and have another murder to hide.

 

[This double posted and I can't seem to get it to edit.  Apologies.]

Edited February 29, 2016 by Captanne

[RCharter]

I don't see Mike killing anyone who hasn't hurt him or his family.  I think he's very realistic about his new line of work but I also think he's a fair man.

 

Plus, the whole idea of taking care of Pryce's fuck up is to prevent blowback on himself.  If he killed Pryce he'd be actually increasing his vulnerability.  He'd still have Nacho, et al, after him and have another murder to hide.

 

[This double posted and I can't seem to get it to edit.  Apologies.]

I feel like future Mike might kill even at the hint of involving his family (and maybe not his daughter in law, but certainly his granddaughter).  But right now that may be a function of the fact that he hasn't developed that close relationship with his granddaughter.  But you're right, he has always been a fair man, which is why he never took the money....he was paid for a job, he did his job, he didn't earn that money, so he didn't take that money.

 

From my POV taking care of Playah (because I love that name) once and for all would be a final thing to have to cover, and it keeps him from being an ongoing threat.  I mean, at this point you have to trust that Playah won't get greedy and confident again after a bit of time and the fear wears off -- so that he won't trust himself to get back into the game.  And as stupid as he is at crime, Playah could get caught.  Or the cops could connect his drugs to another case.  As long as Playah is alive you have to trust him not to talk.  And Playah looks like a talker, a guy who calls the cops is probably not someone cut out for the drug game.  But thats just me.  If I had it in me to kill people, I think it would be logical to kill Playah, or just make him "disappear"  But as you said, perhaps Mike's internal sense of fairness and justice is what he feels sets him apart from the common criminal.

[Umbelina]

I saw an interview somewhere where the producers said that the show is actually two shows, Saul's and Mike's.  I think it's interesting that just as Jimmy isn't yet Saul, Mike isn't yet the Mike we (many of us) know he ends up as.  He is still showing some humanity and is not completely hardened and pragmatic.  It probably would have been best for him not to intervene on Pryce's idiocy and steer clear of Nacho altogether.  Yet he tries to get that nimrod out of a jam. 

It can still be Mike's story, without showing much progression.  He's closer in time to the events that lead to him leaving the force, so hopefully we may see more of that though.  Honestly, he seems like the same old (amazing) Mike to me.  So happy to have this character, and the actor, on screen again.

 

I'm not sure how altruistic Mike is -- he made it pretty clear that he's getting Pryce off of the hook because it could come back on him.  He's not doing it to be kind.  I think he realizes protecting his own interests is part of doing business if he chooses to get in the "protection racket" the way he has.  (And he has done so to provide for his daughter-in-law and granddaughter.)

Exactly.  He is pragmatic, and he's covering his ass.  Playah is a timebomb, but Mike never goes to murder first.  If he can handle things another way, he will, and he is obviously trying here.  He should go scare the shit out of Playah and enforce the fact that he needs to keep his damn mouth shut, as only Mike can.  This talk has made me realize that Mike may HAVE to kill him though, rather than Tuco or Nacho.  It makes a better story.  Initially I thought Nacho or the gang would do it, and Mike and/or Jimmy would know, but not prevent it.  Now, I'm not so sure.

 

True, but perhaps it might have been easier for Mike to make Playah "disappear."  It doesn't seem like he has anyone in his life, his father is gone, I'm sure he wasn't picking up any bikini clad women in the H2 (with dual temperature control!).  As long as Playah is alive, he can blow down the entire house of cards, with Mike, Nacho, Tuco, and Jimmy.  So, I don't know.....

Yeah, he's a dead man, and that, no matter how it happens, is going to lead the story to a new level.  It's not Mike's style to use a Bazooka when a quiet talk will do, he's a minimalist when given any choice at all.  It's why he brought his lunch, rather than a gun, to the first meet with Nacho. 

 

When pushed though, he'll make whatever move is necessary, that far, and no further.  Damn, there is a word that describes perfectly what I'm trying to say here, but I can't think of it!  Not enough coffee I guess.  It's even used in personality tests, management, and intelligence tests.  It describes a person who chooses the most effective and appropriate response in various situations, just enough, but not over what is REQUIRED for effectiveness.

 

Anyone?

 

Anyway.  That's Mike.

[ghoulina]

Upon rewatch, I thought that the thing that upset Kim the most was learning that Playuh was a client Jimmy took on his own. It wasn't through Davis and Main. I think Kim really likes the idea of Jimmy working at a similar scmanzy firm to hers, and she's worried he's going to fuck it all up.