Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S02.E02: Cobbler


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

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.)

 

Altruistic isn't what I was going for exactly.  Not exactly kindness either, but he doesn't need to get Pryce off the hook to protect himself.  He could have done nothing at all -- so someone took the guy's card collection and looked for more drugs.  That's his problem, and Mike didn't need to intervene on that at all.  That could have been the end of it, no more dealings with Pryce or Nacho.  He already walked away from the money as soon as Pryce insisted on driving his pimp-mohummer.  Mike has now gotten himself more involved instead of less involved.  Maybe I'm projecting something that isn't there, but maybe he is a little bit protective of younger men who are putting themselves in danger because of how he perceives he failed to protect his son.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Mike HAD to intervene.  By the time the cops got finished with an un-lawyered up Pryce?  He would have told them everything, and given up Mike without a second thought.   Mike would be up on so many charges it makes my head spin. 

Edited by Umbelina
  • Love 9
Link to comment

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

 

That's certainly not how my state's bar association sees it, when it comes to lawyers knowingly making false statements to the police. I doubt New Mexico's is any different.

Link to comment

That's certainly not how my state's bar association sees it, when it comes to lawyers knowingly making false statements to the police. I doubt New Mexico's is any different.

I think "knowing" is the intent, but I think you're right, in that the standard of proof for a criminal case for knowingly making false statements to the police would be far different from the standard of proof for a Bar Association proceeding.  I'm guessing for a criminal case its beyond a reasonable doubt, but for a bar association proceeding its probably either a preponderance of the evidence, or by clear and convincing evidence.  

 

I think any statement from Playah, if believed, would meet every standard of proof.  If Playah says he never told Jimmy about a Squat Cobbler, and Jimmy told the squat cobbler stories to the cops.  And a jury were to believe Playah/the cops -- then yeah, that is enough for beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, and a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Mike HAD to intervene.  By the time the cops got finished with an un-lawyered up Pryce?  He would have told them everything, and given up Mike without a second thought.   Mike would be up on so many charges it makes my head spin. 

Mike who?  Mike from where?  I don't know what they would have on Mike, before he brokered the baseball card/Hummer exchange.  Pryce paid him in cash, I doubt Mike used his real name, contact via probably a burner phone.  Once Mike goes to Nacho's dad's upholstery shop, he might have been seen by surveillance cameras or cops who were already watching Nacho, and he was driving his own car I think.  He probably plans all of his moves carefully so as to avoid drawing attention, but I still don't think he had any tracks to cover before Pryce needed his cards back. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

^^Mike from the toll booth at the courthouse.  The same Mike that is in NM because he is suspected in the murder of two cops.  The same Mike that was seen by the other two lowlifes that Playah hired.  The same Mike that the veterinarian spoke to.  I think Mike did the best job he could to cover his tracks, and if Playah hadn't seen him working at the courthouse toll booth it may have been an entirely different story, but now there is a way to identify Mike.....so I don't know.  There was nothing in the world Mike could have done to keep that from happening.  He couldn't have known that Playah would be stupid enough to call the cops to complain about the cards and come in for an in person interview.  That was just a freak thing.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
(edited)

^^Mike from the toll booth at the courthouse.  The same Mike that is in NM because he is suspected in the murder of two cops.  The same Mike that was seen by the other two lowlifes that Playah hired.  The same Mike that the veterinarian spoke to.  I think Mike did the best job he could to cover his tracks, and if Playah hadn't seen him working at the courthouse toll booth it may have been an entirely different story, but now there is a way to identify Mike.....so I don't know.  There was nothing in the world Mike could have done to keep that from happening.  He couldn't have known that Playah would be stupid enough to call the cops to complain about the cards and come in for an in person interview.  That was just a freak thing.

Exactly.  Much too risky, Mike was blown, and Playah is not a guy you want to trust.  With anything.

 

Good catch though!  That's why Mike was in the tollbooth in that scene!  These writers are so damn good.  I missed it, but now it makes perfect sense.  They cross every T and dot every i, and almost never miss stuff. 

 

ETA

I loved all of the lawyer ethics information as it has to do with disbarment, so thanks for that.

Meanwhile, I am totally cracking up at the idea of lawyers being honest.  Not really.  They just need to be careful about how they lie.  I'm not saying all lawyers are dishonest, just that the very idea that they are paragons gives me the giggles.

 

I was on a jury once and watched several lawyers testify to both sides of a civil case.  Believe me when I say, they directly contradicted each other in several areas.  I was completely shocked that lawyers so easily committed perjury.  But they did.  These were not "shades of grey" or skirting ethical loopholes lies either.  For example, because I can't remember too many specifics after all this time, but here was one thing.  Two lawyers called by the prosecution and two lawyers called by the defense.  ONE pair said the contracts were signed on one day, the other pair said they were signed a week and a half later.  All four said they were there.  It went on like that for several other issues/facts.

 

So, yeah, we, as a jury, decided that none of their testimony was reliable, since each pair lied, while under oath, to different things that we later found were true or false, either by their own side contradicting them, or when the notary admitted to being coerced to fake the date, etc.

 

Later I even, during a post-trial private talk with the judge asked if they would face perjury charges, and talked about my shock, since I honestly can't imagine lying under oath.  She said, no, unfortunately, lawyers almost never do.  She seemed honest, and I remember thinking, YOU should charge them, but oh well...

Edited by Umbelina
  • Love 4
Link to comment

Exactly.  Much too risky, Mike was blown, and Playah is not a guy you want to trust.  With anything.

 

Good catch though!  That's why Mike was in the tollbooth in that scene!  These writers are so damn good.  I missed it, but now it makes perfect sense.  They cross every T and dot every i, and almost never miss stuff. 

Agreed, the writing is so amazing on this series.  Its almost too good, because now sometimes I watch other shows and I'm like "oh boy" :(

 

You don't want to trust a guy like Playah ever in your life.  That dude will sing like a canary.  So, you would have to absolutely make certain he doesn't ever become someone of interest for the cops.  Playah is the weakest of weak links.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

That's certainly not how my state's bar association sees it, when it comes to lawyers knowingly making false statements to the police. I doubt New Mexico's is any different.

The "knowingly" part is generally nearly impossible to prove.

How many lawyers are disbarred or charged criminally each year for lying to the police or suborning perjury? I am guessing the number is low and not because lawyers are all honest, but because such charges are extremely difficult to prove.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
(edited)

True, but Jimmy made it pretty easy to prove, buy being reckless.  I think that's what shocked Kim so much.  Not what he did as much as how he did it.  As some lawyers here have pointed out, he could have said something like "wow, sure wish we had an actual tape" to Playah, or he could have used more words like "that's my understanding" instead of making a tape himself, and basically telling the cops he knew it all was true from his own knowledge.  "Well apparently there is this fetish about sitting in pies..." or, "apparently it was a consensual adult thing" or all the ways to lie that couldn't get you disbarred.

 

Or simply said that apparently it was a lover's quarrel and they've apparently made up now, sorry for the trouble, and leave the damn pie squatting out of it altogether. 

 

ETA

A repeat is on in a few minutes, I'm going to be paying attention to HOW Jimmy says what he says to the cops and to Kim.  Ha!

 

ETA again.

OK, so I just watched the talk between Chuck and Howard about Jimmy's new job.  There is definitely something more going on there, but I don't know WHAT it is.  They don't do throwaway scenes on this show.  WHY did Howard show up?  WHY did he make sure to shift all the blame to Kim?  I suspect it isn't just about keeping Chuck close and avoiding blame should Chuck find out another way.  Howard was acting very strangely...

Edited by Umbelina
  • Love 2
Link to comment
(edited)

Exactly.  Much too risky, Mike was blown, and Playah is not a guy you want to trust.  With anything.

 

Good catch though!  That's why Mike was in the tollbooth in that scene!  These writers are so damn good.  I missed it, but now it makes perfect sense.  They cross every T and dot every i, and almost never miss stuff. 

 

ETA

I loved all of the lawyer ethics information as it has to do with disbarment, so thanks for that.

Meanwhile, I am totally cracking up at the idea of lawyers being honest.  Not really.  They just need to be careful about how they lie.  I'm not saying all lawyers are dishonest, just that the very idea that they are paragons gives me the giggles.

 

I was on a jury once and watched several lawyers testify to both sides of a civil case.  Believe me when I say, they directly contradicted each other in several areas.  I was completely shocked that lawyers so easily committed perjury.  But they did.  These were not "shades of grey" or skirting ethical loopholes lies either.  For example, because I can't remember too many specifics after all this time, but here was one thing.  Two lawyers called by the prosecution and two lawyers called by the defense.  ONE pair said the contracts were signed on one day, the other pair said they were signed a week and a half later.  All four said they were there.  It went on like that for several other issues/facts.

 

So, yeah, we, as a jury, decided that none of their testimony was reliable, since each pair lied, while under oath, to different things that we later found were true or false, either by their own side contradicting them, or when the notary admitted to being coerced to fake the date, etc.

 

Later I even, during a post-trial private talk with the judge asked if they would face perjury charges, and talked about my shock, since I honestly can't imagine lying under oath.  She said, no, unfortunately, lawyers almost never do.  She seemed honest, and I remember thinking, YOU should charge them, but oh well...

Your point on attorneys is well taken.  An attorney faces 2 interesting duties that can sometimes conflict with each other.  There is of course the duty not to lie or suborn perjury, and there is a duty to offer a vigorous defense or case for your client.  So, I think in the case you were in, I would think there might be a question would be...for each attorney that was on the stand, was there an interpretation to the contract "signature" that they could use to where they would be telling the truth, but also advocating for their client?

 

For example -- were they talking about the "signature date" as the date of execution?  As the date when a confirmatory memo was sent?  When one party signed it, or were both parties together in the room?  Did one party sign something ahead of time that might be construed as a contract? When a preliminary agreement was signed that a party may conceivably argue is a contract?  An incomplete writing that may have been seen as a partially integrated contract?  Was it a simple dispute with just one meeting, could there have been an oral contract that was later confirmed in writing and so one party interprets that as the day the contract is signed?  If there were no duty to provide the best case for your client, you may have gotten an answer that would more comport with the traditional idea of when the contract was signed.  But because an attorney has to provide the best case for their client without straight up lying, they have to sometimes look for a creative interpretation of the words.  A signature can seem like a straight forward thing, but what is a signature, what is a contract.  In some areas of law, a signature can be a letterhead.  Sometimes a contract can be different things.  Each party may have a different idea of when the contract was actually formed, or what papers/documentation actually formed the contract.  

 

I would be surprised if there were straight up lying going on.  It's entirely possible, there have been attorneys who have lied and been disbarred/suspended for doing so.  But either way, I can absolutely see, from the perspective of the juror how it absolutely looks like a bunch of lying liars who lie.

 

ETA:  sorry to be so off-topic, well lawyer ethics is kinda on topic....but still.....my bad!

Edited by RCharter
  • Love 2
Link to comment

Rewatching Cobbler ahead of the new episode tonight. Interesting contrast between Kim going the extra mile to sit next to Jimmy and support him, and her hesitant body language in the car park, glancing around after the kiss, like she doesn't want anyone to notice.

Obviously she worries about coworkers talking, but I think there's more to it.

Link to comment
(edited)

Watched again, and yeah, Jimmy didn't cover himself at all.  Kim was right "you sound like every dumb criminal out there."

 

RCharter

They flat out lied.  These were not the lawyers representing either client in the case (although in the bank's case, two lawyers did some form of corporate law for the bank,) and asserted privilege at times on the stand.  It wasn't just one lie either, it was a few, but at least one on both sides.

 

That trial was like the keystone cops, went on for over a month, the two plaintiff lawyers were just awful, it's amazing they passed the bar.  The couple had divorced, so they each had their own lawyer, who often contradicted the OTHER lawyer on facts as well, as well as their own witnesses.  The bank lawyers obviously were not top of their class either, and called one witness (the notary) who admitted falsifying dates on the contract at the behest of a bank lawyer they had called previously to swear that it happened on the date on the contract.  I am SO not kidding.  Apparently the notary felt bad, and they didn't prepare their witness.  As I said, that was only ONE "fact" that was nutty in that case.  As it turned out NEITHER date was true (remember both sets of lawyers swore it was) and the notary burst into tears spontaneously, and totally unprompted  under bank lawyer direct, was ashamed, and very, very believable.  The bank lawyer was temporarily speechless.  That was quite funny actually.

 

Both sets of lawyers tried to say in closing arguments (all 3 sides really) that the dates were unimportant, after wasting nearly a week on that one point.

 

Ha.

Edited by Umbelina
  • Love 1
Link to comment

It's easy to imagine that many lawyers lie in many situations, and many do not.  Just like cops do, and ministers, and you name it, because it's a human failing to resort to a lie to save oneself trouble, or spare somebody else, or make a financial gain, etc. etc.  For our Jimmy, though, we know he lies.  He elevates it to an art form.  He doesn't wrestle with it, he enjoys it. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment

This show is just brilliant. I love how even seemingly mundane details tie things together, and how attentive you need to be to catch every nuance.

 

The Pryce storyline was probably my favorite from this episode. That nerdy guy (who I believe was also a nerdy, very odd warehouse guy in "The Office") is a whole different flavor of nerdy weirdo than you usually see. Despite how bizarre that whole cobbler story was, it was believable because you've already got this guy who practically fetishizes his baseball card collection and who drives the most obnoxious, ostentatious, overcompensating vehicle on the planet. 

 

I agree that he's probably bound for Belize at some point soon, but I can't decide whether Mike or Nacho will be the, um, travel agent. And speaking of Nacho, he's a great character. He's in Tuco's crew, but he's pretty much the polar opposite of Tuco. The scene with his dad was nicely done; I felt like I could almost see the waves of "WTF is going on here?" coming off of him while his dad was showing Mike the upholstery options. And it goes without saying that Mike is just the most badass guy ever.

 

And after all those seasons of "Breaking Bad," I'm always wondering when spontaneous violence is going to break out. Like when Nacho's guys were doing donuts in the idiot-mobile, I was half expecting them to start shooting at Mike and Pryce.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Yeah, the two cars, one cup situation is clearly full of symbolism. I think the Mercedes stands for the straight career path at the law firm and that you have to play by the rules with them. The car just comes with the holder as it is, there's no way for Jimmy to do anything about it because all the other cars of the model have the same cup holder (the law abiding conformity). It's the cup that would have to change, i.e. use a different one, which means leaving his Slippin' Jimmy persona behind. Right now, he tosses the cup aside and takes the car, but we know he'll eventually ditch the car (whether by conscious decision or not). Knowing this show and VG's attention to details, I'm pretty sure we'll see the cup in another car with a fitting holder (he'll probably select the car on the criteria of cup holder size) eventually.

I took it as "the cup" represented Kim (being that she gave it to him)& the cup holder in the new car represented the new, legitimate Jimmy, which are no longer a "fit."
Link to comment

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.

IMO it would be completely out of character for Mike to kill "Playuh" (I love that name too!). I recall future Mike chewing out Lydia regarding killing someone as a prophylactic measure.

I save BCS for the weekend with a really unhealthy breakfast (ironically, usually consisting of pie!), so I'm a week behind & haven't seen episode 3 yet, so maybe I'm wrong already, but I think Pryce's story is over, and like the Kettlemans won't be seen/heard from again.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

I took it as "the cup" represented Kim (being that she gave it to him)& the cup holder in the new car represented the new, legitimate Jimmy, which are no longer a "fit."

I think Kim and legitimate!Jimmy are a great fit. And likely the only possible one, too, but alas, that's not what we'll be getting. If anything, Kim and Slippin' Jimmy can't work out.

Link to comment

IMO it would be completely out of character for Mike to kill "Playuh" (I love that name too!). I recall future Mike chewing out Lydia regarding killing someone as a prophylactic measure.

I save BCS for the weekend with a really unhealthy breakfast (ironically, usually consisting of pie!), so I'm a week behind & haven't seen episode 3 yet, so maybe I'm wrong already, but I think Pryce's story is over, and like the Kettlemans won't be seen/heard from again.

 

Perhaps.  I do see your point about Mike not killing as a safety measure.  Right now, Mike is fair, because I think a lot of other people would have stitched Playah up immediately.  I can't remember what happened in what episode, so I'm not going to spoil anything for you!

I don't know. I'm still having nightmares about Betsy Kettleman coming back.

I would love to have her come back to get shat on over, and over and over again.

Link to comment
(edited)

I am not sure if I missed this being mentioned already, but I was re-watching "Breaking Bad" and noticed a nice bit of casting continuity - the cop who responds to Skylar when she wants Walt escorted out of the house for trespassing in Season 3 is the same cop who responds to the baseball card theft at the start of this episode. Quite a nice, subtle throwback (or flash forward as the case may be).

Edited by PhilMarlowe2
  • Love 4
Link to comment
(edited)
On 6/19/2017 at 2:03 PM, PhilMarlowe2 said:

I am not sure if I missed this being mentioned already, but I was re-watching "Breaking Bad" and noticed a nice bit of casting continuity - the cop who responds to Skylar when she wants Walt escorted out of the house for trespassing in Season 3 is the same cop who responds to the baseball card theft at the start of this episode. Quite a nice, subtle throwback (or flash forward as the case may be).

Really?  Wow, I'll have to rewatch that!   I love what this show does with BB casting...unfortunately I'm not astute enough to notice it every time, so I always appreciate when someone brings it up here :)

Edited by ByTor
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...