S02.E05: Rebecca

[ghoulina]

Yea, I don't really think how Chuck handled Kim with the coffee was sexist. I just see Chuck as kind of an arrogant, controlling bastard. He'll tell you nicely that he wants Fugis instead of Red Delicious, but there's an air of condescension just under the surface. 

[ShellSeeker]

Hello all,

 

The topic of whether or not Chuck asking Kim to make coffee was sexist or not has been pretty thoroughly dissected. I think we can all agree that Chuck is an ass, no matter what his motivations were. With that in mind, let's move on to the next topic. 

Thanks!

[revbfc]

I have to agree with all the people who are skeptical of Chuck's story. Money was missing, and Chuck made an assumption backed up only with gut feeling (and experience). Chances are that maybe Jimmy did steal, but Chuck's story lacked connective tissue. All he has is a belief in his brother's horribleness. Hey, I understand that. People who look, think and act differently are marginalized. It's not OK, but it is what happens. It's the story of my life, and the story of many other posters here. If you don't fit in, you've got to go. The people that love you? They're suspect, too.

Please don't take that last paragraph as an excuse of Jimmy's past. He's a small-time con man. He's a huckster. But slapping him with guilt for a crime for a crime Chuck has no proof? That's wrong. Poisoning the well with Kim? That's worse.

[shapeshifter]

Chuck's story lacked connective tissue.

Yes. For what it's worth, the script/captioning reads:

Now, I'm no accountant, but I discovered $14,000 was just gone, vanished over the years.

Turns out Jimmy had pilfered it in dribs and drabs just took it out of the till.

My dad wouldn't hear it.

Nope.

[ShadowFacts]

I have to agree with all the people who are skeptical of Chuck's story. Money was missing, and Chuck made an assumption backed up only with gut feeling (and experience). Chances are that maybe Jimmy did steal, but Chuck's story lacked connective tissue. All he has is a belief in his brother's horribleness. Hey, I understand that. People who look, think and act differently are marginalized. It's not OK, but it is what happens. It's the story of my life, and the story of many other posters here. If you don't fit in, you've got to go. The people that love you? They're suspect, too.

Please don't take that last paragraph as an excuse of Jimmy's past. He's a small-time con man. He's a huckster. But slapping him with guilt for a crime for a crime Chuck has no proof? That's wrong. Poisoning the well with Kim? That's worse.

 

The reason it smells bad to me is that if Jimmy really did that and it was so abhorrent to Chuck (which it would be, if it happened), I find it hard to believe that he invited Jimmy to dinner to meet his wife.  He maybe would fly to Chicago to bail him out and even try to get him a job in the mailroom, for his mother's sake.  But not invite him over to his house.  Even getting him a job at his firm would probably be a no-go since he would have to be worried that Jimmy would find a way to pilfer, if he did it from his own father.  So I doubt Jimmy just took it out of the till, without some other factor.  He might be guilty with an explanation, as Woody Allen would say.  Or covering for his father or somebody else.

[qtpye]

My pure speculative guess, is that sainted dad made some bad or illegal business decisions and Jimmy took the blame.

 

It does not mean Jimmy is a good guy, but he is more nuanced then what Chuck thinks he is.

[RCharter]

 

 

Chucks says......

Now, I'm no accountant, but I discovered $14,000 was just gone, vanished over the years.

Turns out Jimmy had pilfered it in dribs and drabs just took it out of the till.

My dad wouldn't hear it.

Nope.

 

To me, that sounds like he had some sort of proof.  Is it possible that Jimmy admitted to it, or was silent when the accusation came up so that it was obvious to Chuck that he did it, or is Chuck completely making it up?  Chuck thinks Jimmy is, and will always be "Slippin' Jimmy" but this is a fair amount of detail as to how Jimmy did it.  If Chuck is completely making the story up, why not just say Jimmy stole it to run a con?  Or that Jimmy stole it in large amounts?  

[Tatum]

To me, that sounds like he had some sort of proof.  Is it possible that Jimmy admitted to it, or was silent when the accusation came up so that it was obvious to Chuck that he did it, or is Chuck completely making it up?  Chuck thinks Jimmy is, and will always be "Slippin' Jimmy" but this is a fair amount of detail as to how Jimmy did it.  If Chuck is completely making the story up, why not just say Jimmy stole it to run a con?  Or that Jimmy stole it in large amounts?  

 

I think so too. To me, "turns out, Jimmy was taking it" is a lot different from "$14,000 mysteriously went missing over the years and Jimmy was the one most frequently running the cash register". I don't think Chuck is making it up. $14,000 is a pretty random number.

 

I think based on conversations that Jimmy and Chuck have had in the past, Jimmy may have admitted he took it. He may have had more altruistic reasons for taking it than Chuck realizes, but I think Chuck is telling the truth about how the money went missing.

 

Jimmy has a good heart. But I could see him taking $50 here or there as seed money for some scheme, thinking he'd be able to put it back right away, and then maybe said scheme backfires and he had to take more out to cover his tracks. Just speculation though. I think it was posted somewhere in one of the threads that a few episodes coming up will have a lot of back story of Chuck and Jimmy so maybe we'll get answers then as to whether Chuck truly despises Jimmy and wants to hurt him, or if he does, as he says, love him, but wants to mitigate negative consequences to other people that come from Jimmy being Jimmy (ie, barr him from his law firm and convince Kim to break it off with him).

[Umbelina]

Yes, I hope we get to know Howard more, and out of the office.  I'm not going to play LOST with him though, because for me (not for anyone else speculating) it annoys me, and I'm already annoyed enough.  Ha. 

 

The problem with Chuck going to get the second cup himself was the coffee pot was presumably still ON, to keep the coffee hot.  So, even though it was made, those nasty, dangerous, sick-making electrical things were still pulsing away killing Chuck.

 

Oh, if only they could.  I'm hoping for some kind of natural disaster that send electricity surging through ABQ, and finally kills Chuck, so we don't have to hear about him ever again.  He doesn't interest me, it's always the same old stuff, occasionally dressed up in new clothes.  I really wish I was having a "love to hate!" reaction, but alas, it's a "Yeah, I got it a year ago, and I don't care about it anymore, actually I didn't care much the first two dozen times."  

 

Actually, if they do something new with Chuck, I might not mind him so much, but I'm sick of rinse and repeat.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Umbelina

[Tatum]

Yes, I hope we get to know Howard more, and out of the office.  I'm not going to play LOST with him though, because for me (not for anyone else speculating) it annoys me, and I'm already annoyed enough.  Ha. 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not that interested in what may have been his story 5-10 years ago. What I think is a more interesting twist is showing stuff we've already seen him do, but from his perspective. So, like we all assumed he's this total stuffy asshole who has an inexplicable grudge against Jimmy, and wouldn't even give him a chance as a favor to his partner. Come to find out, he always kind of liked Jimmy, and his good cop bad cop routine may have been as much-if not more- to protect Jimmy's feelings (easier for Jimmy to hate Howard than his brother) as it was to protect Chuck from the fallout of Jimmy's anger.

[Clanstarling]

I believe that Chuck truly believes that Jimmy took the full amount, so I don't believe he's deliberately telling lies. I think the missing 14,000 is a fact. He's a precise kind of guy, and it's a precise figure.

Everything else, I think, is up for grabs. I can't see how he'd have any actual proof, other than a confession. I can picture a scenario, given what we know about them, where Jimmy admits to the occasional bill taken out of the register, and Chuck "hearing" that Jimmy took the entire amount. Chuck's grudge against his brother is so strong that he would always think the worst of him, even while thinking he was being objective and giving Jimmy the benefit of the doubt.

I don't personally believe Jimmy took that much, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Jimmy's certainly a con - but we haven't seen him run any cons against innocent people. His marks have usually been greedy people who think they're the ones who are getting away with something.

Edited March 17, 2016 by clanstarling

[Knuckles]

"It was the response of a girl who is used to finding out about happy hours after they happened."

 

Beautifully said. And I do think that Erin as Jimmy's baby sitter could be fun...a girl who has always played strictly by the rules tied to a guy who has never seen a rule he can't jump over. Girlfriend may loosen up and see the world differently. Otherwise, she will be correcting grammar and doing high-level scut work for the rest of her working life. No risk, no reward, Erin. 

[Umbelina]

I like the Cicero mob connection idea, and Jimmy paying protection for his dad on the sly.

[ShadowFacts]

 

Jimmy has a good heart. But I could see him taking $50 here or there as seed money for some scheme, thinking he'd be able to put it back right away, and then maybe said scheme backfires and he had to take more out to cover his tracks. Just speculation though. I think it was posted somewhere in one of the threads that a few episodes coming up will have a lot of back story of Chuck and Jimmy so maybe we'll get answers then as to whether Chuck truly despises Jimmy and wants to hurt him, or if he does, as he says, love him, but wants to mitigate negative consequences to other people that come from Jimmy being Jimmy (ie, barr him from his law firm and convince Kim to break it off with him).

 

If this season ends anything like last season, we are in for some sort of a surprise.  I can't imagine what it'll be, but I hope the remaining episodes aren't too Chuck-centric because I can only take him in small doses.   To get back to this episode, though, I suppose it is possible that Chuck is trying to warn Kim off of Jimmy for her own good.  But it seems if he is trying to protect people from Jimmy, he did it ass backwards by bringing him to Albuquerque and giving him a job in his firm.  If he thought he could keep a close eye on him, he must have known he couldn't control him.  I would think he would have wanted to keep him at a distance from his own business and personal life, if he thinks he's a low-life thief.

[queenanne]

More conditions are recognized now than in 2002; Chuck could have been the precedent-setter for that one. Accommodations are already being made that wouldn't sound excessive in argument and Chuck hasn't been demanding more, so it'd be tough to say it was unreasonable to continue. The case just has to be strong enough to act as leverage.

 

He could be; but is that likely?  I myself thought the two factors taken together, we were meant to see that Chuck has a mental block and not a physical condition, and that it's nonsense based upon grounds, either way.  Dr. Clea Duvall as good as said last season that Chuck was faking it; I suppose he may be sincere, but he's sincere in delusion.  I am no psychiatrist, but I don't think the ADA would cover this, from what skimpy knowledge I have of the ADA.  It's an inconvenient delusion, but he's not dangerous, thus I can't see "general delusion" as being his/an acceptable excuse (it's tough enough to get an accommodation for something like adult attention deficit disorder in the workplace).  If it's not a physical condition, I don't see him getting much of a foothold into complaint land, and certainly not precedent land.

 

In short, when our first intrusion of the medical world onto Chuck's condition is the dr. saying tests have shown nothing wrong with Chuck, for some reason I don't see Vince G. as deciding that BCS, is the place to break new medical ground.  "Surprise!  We have gotten him qualified as a legitimate mentally/nervous systemically-ill individual with [X-Files] disease!"  I think in the framework we have, it could only be intended as nonsense from a medical standpoint.

 

OMG, me too! That's so funny. In the early part of season 1, when Walt is teaching Krazy 8 how he makes the meth, and Jesse is being a useless whiner, I thought, well, maybe Jesse is going to get replaced by Krazy 8, and I was all for it. I did not like Jesse in the first 2-3 seasons and found his speaking patterns irritating, not funny. Then I started to like Jesse more but didn't like Walt as the series went on. I never understood all the hate for Skylar.

 

I like Better Call Saul more than I liked Breaking Bad. I actually think there's a lot more to both Chuck and Howard than what has been shown. Chuck may not be very nice, but I think there's more to the story than a jealous, overlooked child that grew up resentful and now looks to sandbag his little brother whenever he can. And I think Howard could really be a fascinating character. That's mostly because I like the actor, but there's a lot more they could do with him. The revelation last season that he was the fall guy for Chuck made me think he's not just going to be the rich antagonist who rains on Jimmy's parade all the time.

 

Interesting observation about Kim wanting Jimmy to be more "corporate". so he's respectable enough to marry. I don't know though- sounds like Kim is something of a hot commodity in her field based on how many potential date offers she turned down in an effort to bring in a big client. If she wanted to date a rule following attorney on the partner track, she probably could. She wouldn't have to remold Jimmy.

 

I loathed Jesse until he

fell in the chemical toilet

, after which I felt positively good-humored towards him, lol.  By the end of the series i was a total Aaron Paul fangirl.

 

I may have been wrong overall about Kim, I just thought it was a pretty big sea change in her attitude overall between this year and last... what changed?  Because her rejection of him last year, pretty much gave me the impression that she thought he wasn't good enough for her.  I suppose she may have objected to the criminality, but I didn't like her very much last year for turning him down.

[Portia]

I squeed with joy when Hector appeared. How great an actor is that guy? His performance on BCS put his BB performance in a whole new light for me. My husband commented that it's as if the actor, before Breaking Bad, had completely mapped out Hector's pre-stroke personality and mannerisms, then used that to develop his post-stroke characterization. (I may be wrong about Hector's condition on BB--I always assumed he'd had a stroke . )

[Dobian]

Loved the dinner scene flashback with Rebecca, Chuck, and Jimmy.

 

Dick move, Howard.

 

Chuck's talk with Kim was enlightening, with the story about Jimmy and their father's store.

 

Hector and Mike was all kinds of awesome.

 

I want to marry Kim.

 

 

[Dev F]

That said, we simply haven't gotten enough.  Is he closeted (or out), with a bit of a yen for Jimmy?  Does he have amatory interest in Kim (I've never gotten the vibe from either of them but you never know)?  Is he simply "one of those jerks who thinks he's a Man of the People and doesn't know people hate him?"  Because I just don't see any reason for him to go out on a limb to hire Jimmy, then combine it with exiling Kim, if his intention was not "Jimmy will do well, justify my faith in him, and then it will be awesome because people will think I know talent."  I can think of literally no other reason than positive feelings, why Howard would push for Jimmy to be hired.  We've seen that Chuck hates the idea, why would Howard want to tick Chuck off, unless Howard wants Chuck to have a firm-quitting relapse?

 

Yeah, even my own speculation is a bit more speculative than I usually prefer. I'm more comfortable extrapolating what characters are thinking than what they're doing, but right now with Howard we have to hypothesize through the latter to get to the former.

 

Now, I do still suspect that Howard's actions will ultimately link up with the "incompatible partners" theme of this episode -- and that's why the vague plot points don't bother me as much as some other folks, since I think they will end up cohering into something interesting once we know more. But I can't quite make it all fit without resorting to some pretty convoluted 3-D chess; if Howard thinks that Jimmy and Kim would be better off apart, there are easier ways to make that point than to abuse Kim in the hopes that she will redirect her anger toward her boyfriend and break up with him instead of keeping it focused on the person who's actually being a jerk. And since Howard is not a character on Hannibal, I'm hoping the explanation for his behavior will be more elegant and psychologically plausible that that. :p

Edited March 18, 2016 by Dev F

[Christina]

Micheal McKean did a short interview on this episode which discusses what is being discussed in this thread so I'm posting it here instead of media. There are no spoilers. 

[Umbelina]

Micheal McKean did a short interview on this episode which discusses what is being discussed in this thread so I'm posting it here instead of media. There are no spoilers. 

Q: After Kim is demoted, what do you think actually motivates Chuck to help her out?

A: I think it’s very important for a person like Chuck to have people in his corner and to be able to use them to do his inside work. Kim is perfect in that way, or so Chuck thinks. There’s a scene with them together — the first time we’ve ever seen them alone — and he tells her some stuff about Jimmy that she might not know. She has such a great poker face, but it’s very important for Chuck to have her on his team and understand his point of view. I would never want to play poker with Rhea Seehorn!

 

That seems right, she's just another weapon to hurt Jimmy.

 

Here we go again.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Something that occurred to me as I was downing a green beer...Why wouldn't Hector go after Nacho with suspicions that he and Mike were in on this together.  After all, as far as Hector is concerned, Mike's motivations are unknown.  If Nacho is afraid of "the look" that Tuco gives, would he not be terrified to just be in Hector's presence?  Ruh roh.

 

With all the discussion in here about Big Law, I'd like to offer a new data point.  I do not understand why D&M would have chosen to put Jimmy on an associate track.  He was brand spanking new to the Bar.  But, yes, he was bringing a juicy client with him.  Their placement of him as a 4th year is not unreasonable.  

 

There is something called "Of Counsel."   A super close friend of mine went this route, by mutual choice, when she moved from Big Law I where she was a very senior associate and hated it there, to Big Law II with clients who paid (still do) in the 7 figures for her services.  She did not want to have the hassle of running her own shop, so she negotiated a path to equity (partnership) without the pressure of being moved out if the super senior partners had reasons to not grant her full partner status from associate status.  It's worked very well.  She has enjoyed flexibility and privileges that no associates can have.

 

If ever there was a situation crying out for an Of Counsel arrangement, in my opinion, Jimmy was it.

[shapeshifter]

Something that occurred to me as I was downing a green beer...Why wouldn't Hector go after Nacho with suspicions that he and Mike were in on this together.  After all, as far as Hector is concerned, Mike's motivations are unknown.  If Nacho is afraid of "the look" that Tuco gives, would he not be terrified to just be in Hector's presence?  Ruh roh.

At this point, I don't think Tio Salamanca knows Mike as anyone other than an old man who sideswiped his hot-under-the-collar nephew's car, and got in a fight over it.

[ShadowFacts]

At this point, I don't think Tio Salamanca knows Mike as anyone other than an old man who sideswiped his hot-under-the-collar nephew's car, and got in a fight over it.

Hector mentioned that he knows Mike is an ex-cop.  That's probably got Hector's spidey senses on alert.  Mike has been watched/followed.  I think Nacho is on shaky ground, and he was from the beginning, it was a pretty ballsy move trying to put a hit on Tuco and could have blown up on him a number of ways. 

[Tatum]

Hector mentioned that he knows Mike is an ex-cop.  That's probably got Hector's spidey senses on alert.  Mike has been watched/followed.  I think Nacho is on shaky ground, and he was from the beginning, it was a pretty ballsy move trying to put a hit on Tuco and could have blown up on him a number of ways. 

 

Agreed. Mike may well (from Tuco and Hector's perspective) have just been a crotchety old man desperate to hold on to his SS check, but Hector sure was going to check into him before approaching him. And I know Mike didn't have to testify against Tuco as Tuco beat him in front of the police, but there probably still would be a paper trail on Mike from the incident that Hector would have the resources to access.  

 

 

Q: After Kim is demoted, what do you think actually motivates Chuck to help her out?

A: I think it’s very important for a person like Chuck to have people in his corner and to be able to use them to do his inside work. Kim is perfect in that way, or so Chuck thinks. There’s a scene with them together — the first time we’ve ever seen them alone — and he tells her some stuff about Jimmy that she might not know. She has such a great poker face, but it’s very important for Chuck to have her on his team and understand his point of view. I would never want to play poker with Rhea Seehorn!

 

Disappointing for sure. Chuck's one saving grace for me was his seemingly legit concern for both his employees and his clients. Keeping a talented, hard working ethical associate in doc review for someone else's transgressions is unfair to not just the employee but also the clients for whom her services would benefit. He should want to help Kim for the sake of helping Kim, not so he can make her feel like she owes him one.

 

One question though for people with Big Law experience- was Kim actually demoted? I mean, she still retained her title and her salary, right? And doc review was always a part of her job if I remember right. It's just now that instead of getting stuck with it on mornings when she's the last associate in the office, it's her full time job and may be for awhile.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Tatum

[ghoulina]

Hector mentioned that he knows Mike is an ex-cop.  That's probably got Hector's spidey senses on alert.  Mike has been watched/followed.  I think Nacho is on shaky ground, and he was from the beginning, it was a pretty ballsy move trying to put a hit on Tuco and could have blown up on him a number of ways.

 

Agreed. I think Hector knows this is more than just a parking lot run in, or he wouldn't have approached Mike in the first place. 

[Should Be Working]

Perhaps it's been mentioned earlier in this long thread. But it seems odd that a very smart, cautious, and streetwise old cop like Mike would not have known that Hector and the cartel would easily and quickly uncover Mike's identity from Tuco's arrest report. He seems to have been far more diligent about finding a way to get rid of Tuco temporarily without, as Nacho wanted, killing him while not exposing Nacho to suspicion. Not so much the likely grave consequences to himself and his beloved granddaughter and daughter-in-law when his staged encounter with Tuco in front of responding police was uncovered by Hector and the familia.

 

We know that Hector, Mike, Cayley, etc. survive to the Breaking Bad timeframe, so obviously nothing lethal happens to those characters in Better Call Saul. Which leaves me wondering how an otherwise potentially lethal situation plays out in S2. After all, Hector isn't the type to forgive and forget when Mike turns down his request to take the fall for the gun charge.

 

Right, there will be a Season 2 encounter between Hector and Mike that leads to Hector's stroke. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Should Be Working

[TVFan17]

Perhaps it's been mentioned earlier in this long thread. But it seems odd that a very smart, cautious, and streetwise old cop like Mike would not have known that Hector and the cartel would easily and quickly uncover Mike's identity from Tuco's arrest report. He seems to have been far more diligent about finding a way to get rid of Tuco temporarily without, as Nacho wanted, killing him while not exposing Nacho to suspicion. Not so much the likely grave consequences to himself and his beloved granddaughter and daughter-in-law when his staged encounter with Tuco in front of responding police was uncovered by Hector and the familia.

 

We know that Hector, Mike, Cayley, etc. survive to the Breaking Bad timeframe, so obviously nothing lethal happens to those characters in Better Call Saul. Which leaves me wondering how an otherwise potentially lethal situation plays out in S2. After all, Hector isn't the type to forgive and forget when Mike turns down his request to take the fall for the gun charge.

 

Right, there will be a Season 2 encounter between Hector and Mike that leads to Hector's stroke. 

 

I think you're on to something.

 

Mike seemed very aware of the Salamancas when he was first talking to Nacho about the idea of getting rid of Tuco, and he would have to know that, even if he didn't kill Tuco, his mere entanglement with him (getting him in trouble with the law) would suddenly put him on the Salamancas' radar.  They would do a full investigation of Mike.   That's not a family that will overlook one of their own being messed with in any way, not even years and years later.  They would also be completely and fully aware of Mike working for Gus (when that finally happens).

 

And Tuco, being the loose cannon that he is, would surely want to kill Mike when he got out of jail, and his family would have all of the intel and info on where to find Mike.  So, something happens somewhere along the line -- maybe Hector talks to Tuco; maybe Gus enters the picture and threatens Hector -- to get the Salamancas off of Mike's back, as he works with Gus and what not.  Otherwise, they would have killed him long before the BB timeline started. 

[Umbelina]

Agreed. I think Hector knows this is more than just a parking lot run in, or he wouldn't have approached Mike in the first place. 

If he didn't know before that meeting, I'm sure he did after it.  Like recognizes like, and that was two experienced, smart old dangerous pros having that conversation.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this is all to bring in Gus.  The actor loved the role, and would probably love to be working with this group again.  Also, obviously, when Saul says to Walter, "I know a guy who knows a guy..." the guy he knew was Mike, and the guy Mike knew was Gus.  Sooner or later, Gus has to show up.

 

So, it seems Mike was very, very sloppy here with this plan of "half measures?"

 

Also, not to bore anyone to tears with my ongoing criticism about not having the other characters be more complete, but I was thinking about it last night, and came up with the logical reasons for that, since it is SO unlike these writers, they usually go slow to give us rich details that make everyone interesting generally, and I love that about them.  Bear with me here, it came from that last interview with Vince, not that he hasn't said it before, but it finally hit me, maybe because I've been lamenting this, IMO, flaw in the writing this week.

 

Originally Howard and the rest of the non-Chuck or Kim, non-BB characters were ONLY on screen to turn Jimmy into Saul.  They were plot generated, plot motivated, incomplete characters because they weren't going to be around much, and were only there to serve the plot.  The writing team fully expected we'd have Saul on screen by now.  Then they decided they were enjoying Jimmy, so they stretched out their timeline of when that jump would happen.  In some ways, it worked, but to me, now, because the others have no lives outside the office, but are taking up a lot of screen time, it's reached it's sell-by date.  There is no problem with keeping Jimmy as JImmy, and these other time-eaters on screen, as long as they flesh them out and make them interesting as well.  Maybe they will, or maybe they will just continue as devices to push Jimmy into becoming Saul, because that is going to happen soon.

 

Anyway, it made sense to me, finally.

They fleshed out Nacho because he WILL remain in Saul's life, they've left Howard (and others) a vacuum because they won't.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Umbelina

[ShadowFacts]

I think you're on to something.

 

Mike seemed very aware of the Salamancas when he was first talking to Nacho about the idea of getting rid of Tuco, and he would have to know that, even if he didn't kill Tuco, his mere entanglement with him (getting him in trouble with the law) would suddenly put him on the Salamancas' radar.  They would do a full investigation of Mike.   That's not a family that will overlook one of their own being messed with in any way, not even years and years later.  They would also be completely and fully aware of Mike working for Gus (when that finally happens).

 

And Tuco, being the loose cannon that he is, would surely want to kill Mike when he got out of jail, and his family would have all of the intel and info on where to find Mike.  So, something happens somewhere along the line -- maybe Hector talks to Tuco; maybe Gus enters the picture and threatens Hector -- to get the Salamancas off of Mike's back, as he works with Gus and what not.  Otherwise, they would have killed him long before the BB timeline started. 

 

I was one of the people critical of Mike's execution of his plan, I thought it was weak inasmuch as he mentioned he would not have to testify.  Maybe not, but so what, his name would certainly be in the reports and charges and be mentioned at trial.  So he was leaving himself open to being in the crosshairs of the Salamancas.  But also he was getting himself back on the radar of the Albuquerque police, which you would think he would want to avoid.  He's already known to a couple detectives from when the Philadelphia detectives interviewed him in connection with the cops he murdered there. Mike would want to limit his contacts, even as a victim, especially as a victim of a drug dealer.  He screwed up, and I hope it's Jimmy who has to help him out, because that would be interesting.  I don't know if they will introduce Gus Fring so soon after Hector. 

[Dobian]

It's possible that Hecor has his stroke, too, before Mike has to give him his decision.

[Umbelina]

That would be much too much of a fortuitous stroke of luck to be believed though.  I'd rather Mike rescue himself, than have God suddenly step in.

[Ohwell]

Also, not to bore anyone to tears with my ongoing criticism about not having the other characters be more complete, but I was thinking about it last night, and came up with the logical reasons for that, since it is SO unlike these writers, they usually go slow to give us rich details that make everyone interesting generally, and I love that about them.  Bear with me here, it came from that last interview with Vince, not that he hasn't said it before, but it finally hit me, maybe because I've been lamenting this, IMO, flaw in the writing this week.

 

Originally Howard and the rest of the non-Chuck or Kim, non-BB characters were ONLY on screen to turn Jimmy into Saul.  They were plot generated, plot motivated, incomplete characters because they weren't going to be around much, and were only there to serve the plot.  The writing team fully expected we'd have Saul on screen by now.  Then they decided they were enjoying Jimmy, so they stretched out their timeline of when that jump would happen.  In some ways, it worked, but to me, now, because the others have no lives outside the office, but are taking up a lot of screen time, it's reached it's sell-by date.  There is no problem with keeping Jimmy as JImmy, and these other time-eaters on screen, as long as they flesh them out and make them interesting as well.  Maybe they will, or maybe they will just continue as devices to push Jimmy into becoming Saul, because that is going to happen soon.

 

Anyway, it made sense to me, finally.

They fleshed out Nacho because he WILL remain in Saul's life, they've left Howard (and others) a vacuum because they won't.

All I can say is, I, for one, am happy that you have resolution.  ;)  

Edited March 18, 2016 by Ohwell

[Umbelina]

OH, that made me giggle!

 

Out loud.

 

Believe me I hate criticizing Vince and team, because I really adored what they did in BB, in my opinion, one of the best shows every on TV.  I'm just getting annoyed with BCS, because I know they can do better.

 

Also, I'm bored stiff with Chuck.  We GOT IT.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Umbelina

[SignGuy77]

Assuming Nacho will remain in Jimmy's life is assuming a lot. He could be long departed for the resorts of Belize by the time season three begins.

Or he could stick around, being the scheming emu that he is.

[Umbelina]

Assuming Nacho will remain in Jimmy's life is assuming a lot. He could be long departed for the resorts of Belize by the time season three begins.

Or he could stick around, being the scheming emu that he is.

I think he sticks around, or they would never have fleshed out his character by including his father.

[Should Be Working]

Assuming Nacho will remain in Jimmy's life is assuming a lot. He could be long departed for the resorts of Belize by the time season three begins.

Or he could stick around, being the scheming emu that he is.

 

As others have acknowleged, Hector and the family will have performed a very thorough investigation of Mike, and no doubt learned in its course about Nacho's sideline prescription drug purchases from that twerpy baseball card collecting "Baby Pimp SUV" owner, probably directly from the two guys who accompanied him to the pickups. Hector and others in the Salamanca family, being the highly ruthless and efficient types they are, will probably get to Nacho before he can connect with that flight to Belize. I'd bet questioned, murdered, and discarded with extreme prejudice before the end of Season 2. If they can't touch Mike (as appears to be the case), all the more reason to take out their anger and frustration over Tuco's unjust arrest on his scheming partner.

 

Unless Nacho appeared in BB (I can't recall if he did or didn't). In which case Hector is a softy.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Should Be Working

[Ohwell]

I think some other posters mentioned that Saul cried out Nacho's name in BB when Walt and Jessie were about to execute him, right?  Therefore, I had assumed that Nacho was still alive, even though I don't remember seeing him.

 

Edit:  Saul says "It wasn't me, it was Ignacio," Nacho being the nickname.  

Edited March 19, 2016 by Ohwell

[SignGuy77]

Or Saul's just crying out the name of a long deceased former drug dealer who can't prove it wasn't him.

[Umbelina]

Man, I totally forgot Nacho wasn't on Breaking Bad too.  For real!

http://breakingbad.wikia.com/wiki/Ignacio_%22Nacho%22_Varga

[TVFan17]

Man, I totally forgot Nacho wasn't on Breaking Bad too.  For real!

http://breakingbad.wikia.com/wiki/Ignacio_%22Nacho%22_Varga

 

Same here.  For some reason I was thinking that he was in the background of a BB scene with Tuco at some point, but I guess not. 

 

In any case, when Saul mentions the name Ignacio in BB, SignGuy77 is right that maybe Nacho isn't actually alive at that point, and Saul just thinks that posthumous Nacho-related trouble has come a-knockin'.  Or maybe he is alive.   Hmm...

[Eyes High]

I think the problem for Kim is explaining why she is leaving HHM.  No one wants damaged goods, and if you can't get anyone to really give you a recommendation after like 4 years of working at the firm....you're starting to look like damaged goods.  Howard/Chuck would find a way to tank it.  Neither would ever really SAY anything, it would all be off the record, very "well, I can't SAY she was a bad employee, but you know, she just wasn't a good fit for us"

 

And I think Kim wants that big firm life.  Jimmy doesn't want it at all, and I think he is jealous of the DA, in the trenches.  Jimmy does not want to breathe that rarefied air, but Kim does.  I think the job at Davis and Main was really Kim's dream job and its probably one of the reasons she gets annoyed at Jimmy for fucking it up.  She cant imagine not wanting that big firm lifestyle.  But, I think if you leave one big firm to try to leapfrog to another it has to be a really well thought out plan, you don't want to just quit.

 

I agree and disagree on Chuck and Howard being able to tank Kim's job prospects. On the one hand, yes, they could drop hints about Kim not being a "good fit," that most dreaded of euphemisms. However, in my observation, in smaller legal communities at least (and even a big city can have a surprisingly small legal community), everyone knows everyone, and everyone gets a reputation really quickly, both as lawyers and as coworkers, and that applies equally to senior and junior lawyers. If you're a lawyer working for someone who has a reputation as a shitty boss (even if that person is a good lawyer), unless there are rumours from other sources about your problems as an employee, there's very little that shitty boss can do to sink you, since your prospective employer's attitude could very well be "I can see why you're looking for another opportunity given your boss, wink wink nudge nudge say no more." I've seen this happen more than once.

 

I agree that it's less common for someone to go from one biglaw firm to another as opposed to going in-house, getting an LLM with an eye to transitioning to academia (the escape route of choice from biglaw for many), heading off to a smaller boutique firm, or quitting law altogether. It still happens, though.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Eyes High

[Stratego]

The men's room scene between Jimmy and the ADA illustrates the allure of "Big Law" has for "outsiders".  One can use that scene to explain why Kim is fighting so hard to keep her position at HHM.

[bookrat]

I think it may come in to play later, the fact that at least twice in the episode Chuck mentioned that his wife should have it out with the other musician she was having problems with. I think this advice is going to turn out very badly and is probably why Chuck is now the way he is.  His wife is no longer in the picture. Since he is still wearing a wedding ring, I am going to guess that Chuck is a widower and not divorced.

 

[RCharter]

I agree and disagree on Chuck and Howard being able to tank Kim's job prospects. On the one hand, yes, they could drop hints about Kim not being a "good fit," that most dreaded of euphemisms. However, in my observation, in smaller legal communities at least (and even a big city can have a surprisingly small legal community), everyone knows everyone, and everyone gets a reputation really quickly, both as lawyers and as coworkers, and that applies equally to senior and junior lawyers. If you're a lawyer working for someone who has a reputation as a shitty boss (even if that person is a good lawyer), unless there are rumours from other sources about your problems as an employee, there's very little that shitty boss can do to sink you, since your prospective employer's attitude could very well be "I can see why you're looking for another opportunity given your boss, wink wink nudge nudge say no more." I've seen this happen more than once.

 

I agree that it's less common for someone to go from one biglaw firm to another as opposed to going in-house, getting an LLM with an eye to transitioning to academia (the escape route of choice from biglaw for many), heading off to a smaller boutique firm, or quitting law altogether. It still happens, though.

I certainly could see a bad reputation going both ways.  But I'm not sure how much a senior partner has to do to get a reputation for being more difficult than any other senior partner.  I would think a senior partner has to be a huge asshole to get a bad reputation, because I would expect that most senior partner quirks and personality oddities are considered par for the course.  And even a certain level of taking credit for another employees work/effort.  If Kim is simply a one off and Howard is fair and reasonable 99% of the time, I don't see how he would have that reputation.  And, to me, there hasn't been much to suggest that Howard is particularly unfair.  He has never claimed to bring in the business himself, even to Chuck who might never know otherwise.  And I'm not entirely sure that bringing in business as an associate would meant that you automatically get to keep working on it, or that you get a raise or that you get an automatic raise and they put you on the phones drumming up new business.  I would think more than anything it may be a feather in your cap when it comes to discussing who gets on partner track, but they may not want you anywhere near the business because should you decide to leave, they don't want you taking your business with you.

 

But, I see your point, if Howard has developed a reputation as an unfair asshole than it may just be out there....but if he hasn't.....than it sort of stinks for Kim.

[Eyes High]

I certainly could see a bad reputation going both ways.  But I'm not sure how much a senior partner has to do to get a reputation for being more difficult than any other senior partner.  I would think a senior partner has to be a huge asshole to get a bad reputation, because I would expect that most senior partner quirks and personality oddities are considered par for the course.  And even a certain level of taking credit for another employees work/effort.  If Kim is simply a one off and Howard is fair and reasonable 99% of the time, I don't see how he would have that reputation.  And, to me, there hasn't been much to suggest that Howard is particularly unfair.

I agree that it's likely that Howard doesn't have a reputation as a horrible asshole, since his behaviour doesn't seem to rise to the level of assholery that would earn him that reputation. We've seen at least one instance where Howard's apparent assholery was just him grudgingly doing Chuck's bidding, so maybe that's what's going on here. On the other hand, it's possible that this sort of treatment is par for the course for him, and it's easy for me to see how that could affect his reputation as a boss within the legal community.

 

A senior lawyer of Howard's vintage has likely had many, many associates work for him and has had many, many legal assistants and paralegals. Those associates and legal assistants don't exist in a vacuum. They have friends who are other local lawyers and other legal assistants who work at other local firms to whom they have bitched about their shitty boss. When those associates leave the firm, if they stay in town and remain lawyers, they'll go work for other law firms and will spill all the dirt about their work experience. Since it's a rule of life that the most horrible, painful, and humiliating episodes invariably make for the best stories, reports of a horrible boss's unfair treatment will spread like wildfire. Ditto for the legal assistants and paralegals. If someone is a horrible boss at a law firm in a small legal community, chances are everyone will know, and some of the people in a position to hire victims of a horrible boss may have once been victims of that horrible boss themselves.

 

With all that said, I don't know that Kim is part of the wider legal community in that way. If she has friends with whom she went to law school still working in the city, we haven't met them (I think). She seems isolated, without any connections to the legal community that others might have (associates whose parents are lawyers in town, e.g.). It might be very easy for Howard to dismiss her as a bad apple and an outlier, assuming there isn't a pattern of douchebaggery on Howard's part towards associates.

 

I would think a senior partner has to be a huge asshole to get a bad reputation, because I would expect that most senior partner quirks and personality oddities are considered par for the course.

I think there's a difference between quirks and eccentricities, which can be benign (the lawyer who speaks with a British accent even though they're not British, e.g.), and nasty, cruel or even unhinged behaviour. Senior partners may get away with a lot of awfulness within the firm because of their place in the pecking order and/or the money they bring in, but they can still earn a bad reputation that can cost them in the wider legal community (stellar associates getting poached or even leaving the law altogether because they're tired of the bullshit, stellar candidates not applying to the firm because they've heard of how terrible it is, being unable to poach great partners from other firms, etc.).

Edited March 20, 2016 by Eyes High

[RCharter]

I agree that it's likely that Howard doesn't have a reputation as a horrible asshole, since his behaviour doesn't seem to rise to the level of assholery that would earn him that reputation. We've seen at least one instance where Howard's apparent assholery was just him grudgingly doing Chuck's bidding, so maybe that's what's going on here. On the other hand, it's possible that this sort of treatment is par for the course for him, and it's easy for me to see how that could affect his reputation as a boss within the legal community.

 

A senior lawyer of Howard's vintage has likely had many, many associates work for him and has had many, many legal assistants and paralegals. Those associates and legal assistants don't exist in a vacuum. They have friends who are other local lawyers and other legal assistants who work at other local firms to whom they have bitched about their shitty boss. When those associates leave the firm, if they stay in town and remain lawyers, they'll go work for other law firms and will spill all the dirt about their work experience. Since it's a rule of life that the most horrible, painful, and humiliating episodes invariably make for the best stories, reports of a horrible boss's unfair treatment will spread like wildfire. Ditto for the legal assistants and paralegals. If someone is a horrible boss at a law firm in a small legal community, chances are everyone will know, and some of the people in a position to hire victims of a horrible boss may have once been victims of that horrible boss themselves.

 

I think there's a difference between quirks and eccentricities, which can be benign (the lawyer who speaks with a British accent even though they're not British, e.g.), and nasty, cruel or even unhinged behaviour. Senior partners may get away with a lot of awfulness within the firm because of their place in the pecking order and/or the money they bring in, but they can still earn a bad reputation that can cost them in the wider legal community (stellar associates getting poached or even leaving the law altogether because they're tired of the bullshit, stellar candidates not applying to the firm because they've heard of how terrible it is, being unable to poach great partners from other firms, etc.).

this is true, but to me, and I think this is the same in almost any profession....there is a certain amount of "suck it up buttercup" that comes with the territory.  So, you can complain about your boss, but unless it rises to a really awful level, it will just be seen as par for the course.  I guess I see it on a level of 1-10.  If you're lucky you'll get a boss that is a 1 on the horrible boss scale......I'm generally a pretty laid back person, so most of my supervisors have been...maybe a 2-3.  I feel like most people can accept a boss that is around a 5, and when you vent about it people think "well that sort of sucks, but its not so crazy that I would cross the street to avoid that guy."  When you get around a 7-10 on the horrible scale, I think thats when you get people avoiding you and you get a reputation.

 

And if you don't have a number of people who feel the same way, people may just think you've done something to incur the horrible boss behavior that you're not sharing.  If you have "horrible boss story" and you're only 1 of maybe 2-3, some people may think it had something to do with you.

 

Is this making any sense?  If not, my apologies, I blame it on losing an hour of sleep a week ago for Daylight Savings time :)

 

As for quirks v. unhinged behavior....even at his worst I don't think Howard has done anything particularly nasty, cruel or unhinged to an outside observer.  He had an associate attorney that....as far as he knew....failed to take action that jeopardized HHMs relationship with Davis and Main.  He put that associate on doc review as a way to "teach her a lesson."  Doc review may be scut work, but its still work done by lawyers.  He didn't make her clean the toilet stalls with a toothbrush, he didn't make her lick the floor of his office, he didn't make her shave her head....he simply made her do work that is considered grunt work in the legal world.  It sounds more like a cautionary tale about not getting involved in personal relationships on the job and informing the brass immediately if something like that ever comes up.  Yes, Kim brought in new business and she wasn't immediately put on it or taken off of doc review.  But what message would it have sent if she was?  That all past transgressions are forgiven if you bring in business?  You can do whatever you like as long as you're bringing in money?  I don't think that most people hearing the story....understanding that Kim's actions were counter to HHM's interests, would find Howard cruel for not taking Kim out of the doghouse.  Now, does he hold those high level, altruistic reasons?  I don't know, there is every reason to believe that Howard is just being petty.  But, to an outsider looking in, the takeaway may simply be "if you have an ethical fuck up at HHM, it will take a LOT to get out of the doghouse" which only makes it look like Howard really takes ethics seriously (even if he is just being a bitter betty)

[shapeshifter]

this is true, but to me, and I think this is the same in almost any profession....there is a certain amount of "suck it up buttercup" that comes with the territory.  So, you can complain about your boss, but unless it rises to a really awful level, it will just be seen as par for the course.  I guess I see it on a level of 1-10.  If you're lucky you'll get a boss that is a 1 on the horrible boss scale......I'm generally a pretty laid back person, so most of my supervisors have been...maybe a 2-3.  I feel like most people can accept a boss that is around a 5, and when you vent about it people think "well that sort of sucks, but its not so crazy that I would cross the street to avoid that guy."  When you get around a 7-10 on the horrible scale, I think thats when you get people avoiding you and you get a reputation.

 

And if you don't have a number of people who feel the same way, people may just think you've done something to incur the horrible boss behavior that you're not sharing.  If you have "horrible boss story" and you're only 1 of maybe 2-3, some people may think it had something to do with you.

 

Is this making any sense?  If not, my apologies, I blame it on losing an hour of sleep a week ago for Daylight Savings time :)

 

As for quirks v. unhinged behavior....even at his worst I don't think Howard has done anything particularly nasty, cruel or unhinged to an outside observer.  He had an associate attorney that....as far as he knew....failed to take action that jeopardized HHMs relationship with Davis and Main.  He put that associate on doc review as a way to "teach her a lesson."  Doc review may be scut work, but its still work done by lawyers.  He didn't make her clean the toilet stalls with a toothbrush, he didn't make her lick the floor of his office, he didn't make her shave her head....he simply made her do work that is considered grunt work in the legal world.  It sounds more like a cautionary tale about not getting involved in personal relationships on the job and informing the brass immediately if something like that ever comes up.  Yes, Kim brought in new business and she wasn't immediately put on it or taken off of doc review.  But what message would it have sent if she was?  That all past transgressions are forgiven if you bring in business?  You can do whatever you like as long as you're bringing in money?  I don't think that most people hearing the story....understanding that Kim's actions were counter to HHM's interests, would find Howard cruel for not taking Kim out of the doghouse.  Now, does he hold those high level, altruistic reasons?  I don't know, there is every reason to believe that Howard is just being petty.  But, to an outsider looking in, the takeaway may simply be "if you have an ethical fuck up at HHM, it will take a LOT to get out of the doghouse" which only makes it look like Howard really takes ethics seriously (even if he is just being a bitter betty)

All excellent points, RCharter, and yet they managed to make us feel Kim's psychic pain so sharply, which I really appreciated, as someone with a boss who has for years at a time been a "7-10 on the horrible scale" to all underlings. That look on Kim's face when Howard told her she'd be too busy with her doc review to work with the new client she had just landed--Emmy worthy to me.

[ShadowFacts]

From my viewpoint, and it may be simplistic, anything beyond a few words of admonishment is a big overreaction for what Kim did.  Or actually, didn't do.  I think Howard must know she is not a bad apple.  She has worked at HHM for years and they saw fit to pay for her legal education.  I don't know, something is not right about the situation and I suspect we may find out that Howard is going to surprise us as to motivation.  He seemed to find  Kim trustworthy/useful when he took her to Jimmy's billboard, and at the hospital.  Chuck may have something really big on him, something other than the partner share.  We know Chuck to be a controlling manipulator. 

[ByTor]

Take Howard, for example, I know you couldn't care less about him and that's valid.  But for me, I think we know quite a bit about him for the amount of airtime he has received.

Agreed, but maybe because I currently don't view Howard as a "major" character (more like a major minor character, if that makes sense). IMO, to compare to BrBa, delving into his past and his motivations would be the equivalent of delving into Badger & Skinny Pete's pasts (except for the fact that they were low level dealers and junkie friends of Jesse, we really knew nothing about them and didn't need to, but I loved them just the same). Edited March 21, 2016 by ByTor

[ByTor]

Oops, deleting my "Kim and the coffee" post, just saw the mod's note.

My opinion on the missing $14K? I had no idea his hometown was so dangerous (thanks posters who pointed that fact out!), so I'm guessing it will be something like the father had a penchant for illegal activities (gambling, maybe?) and took money from the business to pay off his debts. Jimmy, not wanting Chuck to know about this, which would destroy the reverence he has for his father, then takes the fall to explain the missing cash.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ByTor