S04.E09: Wiedersehen

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, wendyg said:

As for Werner and his wife: why are we assuming that Werner and his wife made no plans to protect him? Why shouldn't they have a thought-out advance plan that is invoked simply by the use of a few common words - say, "book club" - in a particular way? Why wouldn't Werner, knowing the circumstances were dangerous, have left emergency instructions and a "go bag" including the basic documents he would need and some cash? We know nothing about his wife. I'm not suggesting this is the case, but imagine he were married to Lydia. You don't think they'd have a plan?

He was able to plan how to get out of the place undetected, so it's reasonable to think he might have had further plans.  On the other hand, he was very sloppy in his talking to the bar patrons, and kind of wigged out when checking the detonation wires.  So it could go either way,  he's desperate and winging it, or has a master plan.  I personally don't think Gus is going to let this go unpunished.  He's probably got greater resources for finding him than Werner has for eluding him.  Probably, but who knows. 

[Clanstarling]

11 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

He was able to plan how to get out of the place undetected, so it's reasonable to think he might have had further plans.  On the other hand, he was very sloppy in his talking to the bar patrons, and kind of wigged out when checking the detonation wires.  So it could go either way,  he's desperate and winging it, or has a master plan.  I personally don't think Gus is going to let this go unpunished.  He's probably got greater resources for finding him than Werner has for eluding him.  Probably, but who knows. 

There was a moment when he looked at the cameras before going into the house for the last time, it sure looked like an AHA! moment to me, rather than "okay, initiate plan b". I think that's when he got the idea of how to beat the surveillance. Combined with his stark fear and panic attack while checking the wiring, I think he just bolted with no plan, no thought. He just wanted to be away.

I think he's toast.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Clanstarling

[ShadowFacts]

19 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

There was a moment when he looked at the cameras before going into the house for the last time, it sure looked like an AHA! moment to me, rather than "okay, initiate plan b". I think that's when he got the idea of how to beat the surveillance. Combined with his stark fear and panic attack while checking the wiring, I think he just bolted with no plan, no thought. He just wanted to be away.

I think he's toast.

I do, too, and I think Mike has to toast him. 

[Clanstarling]

57 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I do, too, and I think Mike has to toast him. 

Agreed. It's a milestone for Mike - killing someone he likes and who isn't a criminal.

[scenario]

4 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

Yes, this is true.  Unconscious biases work against people every day.  There should ideally be a more objective way to make decisions like this.  The way this scene was written and acted, though, to me made it clear that Jimmy really flubbed it at the end.  It was a stark mistake.  Nobody could believe that someone was inspired by any online school when there are living, breathing role models.  Add that to not mentioning Chuck and laying on the Scalia too thick, and those three people felt queasy about Jimmy and voted to keep him out.  I think if I had been there I would have felt like his answers were lacking but give him the benefit of the doubt, but who knows, group think happens, maybe I give myself too much credit. 

I can see a situation where someone is either not a good communicator or usually an excellent communicator panicking and forgetting what they wanted to say and just babbling during the interview. Basing someones career on one interview doesn't feel right to me. It's different than a job interview because you already have the job and if you mess up on a job interview, you can try again. It's more like messing up on defending your Phd but that is based on a paper you've spent years writing. 

He really did totally blow the interview but I can just see to many ways that an honest lawyer could do exactly the same thing. Your basing someones career on how well they can talk an unrelated skill to being a lawyer. 

Plus people are really bad at telling who is lying, I've read that even people whose job is telling whose lying and whose telling the truth are only right a little over half the time. The whole process is to subjective to be fair. 

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

4 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

There was a moment when he looked at the cameras before going into the house for the last time, it sure looked like an AHA! moment to me, rather than "okay, initiate plan b". I think that's when he got the idea of how to beat the surveillance. Combined with his stark fear and panic attack while checking the wiring, I think he just bolted with no plan, no thought. He just wanted to be away.

I think he's toast.

 

I do, too, and I think Mike has to toast him. 

Not heart-ing these posts because I don't want a toasted Werner. :(

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Not heart-ing these posts because I don't want a toasted Werner. :(

Me neither. Even though I read it as "toasted Weiner".

[FortKnox]

On 10/2/2018 at 6:38 PM, meeeechiganman said:

That is one SICK looking Javelin AMX that Nacho owns!!

Yes it is and I hope to god it doesn't get destroyed like his friends Olds 442. 

[Macnyc]

Fun article in today's Times on BCS's crafting of the perfect con. Plus, the accompanying Inside the Writers' Room video covers this episode in detail and talks about conning the audience, too, into believing some of the more far-fetched aspects of the plot!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/arts/television/better-call-saul-writers-room.html

Edited October 7, 2018 by Macnyc

[Pike Ludwell]

I believe if Mike kills Werner or the other Germans, it would be with extenuating circumstances. Maybe self defense. Or maybe it will be like Walt with Jane - he sees him dying and does nothing to help. Or he sees Gus aiming at him and does not stop him. I think any killing of the group of Germans would be by Gus - and that would be through some cleverly conceived mass killing, not involving shooting them one by one - though Gus could shoot Werner or Kai.

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

Not if it puts the project in jeopardy.  They are behind schedule and they can't risk finishing the project using Werner's notes alone.  More complications could arise that aren't covered in Werner's notes. 

I am surprised that Mike didn't do something to the security guards that were supposed to keep an eye on the workers.  It isn't just about Werner escaping, it also has to do with security being totally clueless that Werner escaped.  If Mike hadn't shown up, who knows how long it would have taken for anyone to notice that Werner had ran off.

I think the guards probably did what they were supposed to do under the security plan that Mike set up.  Werner cleverly disabled the cameras which were the main mechanism for security.   He probably should have added more low tech measures (which are usually Mike's specialty) like guards on the floor of the warehouse, bed checks, etc. 

I am surprised Mike didn't have an alarm installed on the upstairs exit that Werner escaped through.  

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, Pat Hoolihan said:

I believe if Mike kills Werner or the other Germans, it would be with extenuating circumstances. Maybe self defense. Or maybe it will be like Walt with Jane - he sees him dying and does nothing to help. Or he sees Gus aiming at him and does not stop him. I think any killing of the group of Germans would be by Gus - and that would be through some cleverly conceived mass killing, not involving shooting them one by one - though Gus could shoot Werner or Kai.

I don't see Gus shooting anybody.  Have we ever seen him carry a gun?  His hands on killings have been with poison, a boxcutter and a plastic bag.  

I have no idea what will happen to the Germans.  There are so many possibilities, including only Werner being killed or only Werner surviving or all being killed or all surviving.

I still tend to think with all the parallels between Werner and Walt, and the Finale title being "Winner" (as in "I won"), Werner will shock everyone by getting the best of Gus.   There will at least be a lot of suspense for me.  Without all the similarities between Werner and Walt, I'd be expecting Werner to get sent to Belize for sure, and possibly the rest of the Germans.  

[ShadowFacts]

38 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

Not if it puts the project in jeopardy.  They are behind schedule and they can't risk finishing the project using Werner's notes alone.  More complications could arise that aren't covered in Werner's notes. 

I am surprised that Mike didn't do something to the security guards that were supposed to keep an eye on the workers.  It isn't just about Werner escaping, it also has to do with security being totally clueless that Werner escaped.  If Mike hadn't shown up, who knows how long it would have taken for anyone to notice that Werner had ran off.

Werner can be made to finish the job and then be dispensed with.  He's proven his untrustworthiness and Gus won't let that go.  If Werner somehow outsmarts him and survives, I'm all in favor -- I dislike seeing Gus offing his underlings but so far he is meticulous in his planning and I don't see that ending now.  Maybe somebody in this crew becomes an example like Arturo was for Nacho; Werner or somebody else. 

[PeterPirate]

Just thinking about Werner makes me wish the lab is never gonna get finished.  

Maybe Lydia will make arrangements to have him "transferred back to Germany".  

Edited October 8, 2018 by PeterPirate

[Captanne]

If Mike does kill Werner and Kim experiences my suspected plotline

Spoiler

she dies (literally or figuratively) during a scam

then I believe this season will be the most critical one of all of them for character development.  

Edited October 8, 2018 by Captanne

[Ottis]

On 10/5/2018 at 6:08 AM, Milburn Stone said:

That was useful to read. My reaction to the outcome when I watched was to feel awful for Jimmy--to share his reaction that an injustice had been done, I guess because I'm so invested in the character. But reading those criteria, I realize the committee made exactly the right choice, and made it not out of prejudice, but out of an uncommonly perceptive evaluation of the man. Much as I hated them at the time, kudos to them.

I once worked for a man who I liked immensely, but who had created a sort of persona for every day business dealings. He had risen from a tough neighborhood to head up an entire company, and part of the way he did it was to compartmentalize his "real self" and use this business persona in his career. The persona was extremely likable ... but a small number of people would sense it, and would tell me they didn't like him because he "is too fake" or "seems too slick." It was the most interesting thing, that people could sense it but not figure out what it was.

That's what I felt happened with Jimmy and the board. And it probably would have happened whether or not he mentioned Chuck, though clearly that was part of it.

On Werner ... I think he matters because he will play a role in Mike's transition to the dark side. Mike is sort of there now, but has a set of ethics. I suspect he may have to do something because of Werner that violates those ethics, but Werner's action(s) will leave Mike no choice (either because of Mike's code, or because Gus doesn't allow one).

[Tikichick]

On 10/6/2018 at 4:37 AM, PeterPirate said:

I think this response was pretty bad:  

"McGill, is there anything you'd like to tell us about the reasons you were suspended in the first place?" 

"This past year, that's pretty much been the only thing on my mind. And I'm humbled by the sheer stupidity of my actions. Remorse doesn't begin to cover it. I'm not gonna make excuses 'cause there's no excuse for what I did. But as I sit here, I can assure you nothing like that will ever happen again. Never."  

Jimmy was asked about the reasons he was suspended, he only barely talked about his actions that caused the suspension, and not at all about his reasons for those actions.  It reminds me of the scene from Road To Perdition when Paul Newman's character asks Danial Craig's character if he had anything to say after killing an underling.  His answer was so smarmy that Newman improvised slamming his hand on a table.  For a person who bore the responsibility of showing clearly and convincingly that he had sufficient "moral qualifications", Jimmy failed utterly here.  

 

Here is the dialogue from Road To Perdition:

Newman:   Connor, is there something you would like to say about last night?
Craig:  I'd like to apologize for what happened. Especially to you, Pa. Two wakes in a month... What can I say?
Newman:  We lost a good man last night. You think it's funny? Try again.
Craig:  I'd like to apologize...
Newman:  (Slams table) You would like to apologize? Try again.
Craig:  Gentlemen...my apologies. 

I thought that response was absolutely truthful and sincere.  The problem was it was about 11 months pregnant with the expectation that Chuck would be mentioned and yet he was not.  Hence the what influenced you to take up the profession and what does the law mean to you probing questions designed to elicit emotions and a peek at the McGill family dirty laundry.  

The board really had no need to probe the emotional side beyond curiosity.  When nothing was revealed they pounced on the insincerity and the emptiness in all the Scalia and Land Crabs twaddle.  The only real reason the insincerity troubled them was it thwarted their curiosity.   Even after the bitter break in the aftermath of the Davis and Main commercial and no doubt hearing rumblings about the messy dust up between the McGill brothers, the head of Davis and Main not only showed up for Chuck's memorial and offered seemingly sincere condolences to Jimmy.  If the guy with plenty of reasons to bounce Jimmy out of his practice still thought it was the right thing to offer condolences in the light of Chuck's death, the committee members really didn't have a lot of factual basis for declining to readmit him on the basis of insincerity.

I think we need to factor in what we as the audience know from getting a much deeper perspective of the man from both BCS and BB that it would be impossible for the board members to have a grasp on.  The reality is that the board members should have sensed that much lay beneath Jimmy's words of regret and the fact that Chuck's name went unspoken and likely would have chalked it up to what it really is, deep emotions.  Which is exactly what would be expected from someone in Jimmy's shoes under the circumstances.  They could have and should have probed particulars relating to his thoughts on the importance of the ethical practice of law.  Then their decision would have made sense from what they gleaned in the interview.      

[Blakeston]

I think the board had a sense of lack of remorse from Jimmy. If you're a lawyer who's been caught committing a crime, they don't just want you to say "I did something really stupid, and it was beneath me."

I think they'd want you to recognize the damage you did to the victim of your crime - particularly if he was a recently deceased titan of the legal industry.

So I don't think the issue was that they didn't like Jimmy's style of speaking. I think it was that they didn't believe he'd truly recognized the error of his ways and changed for the better.

[Bryce Lynch]

36 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

I think the board had a sense of lack of remorse from Jimmy. If you're a lawyer who's been caught committing a crime, they don't just want you to say "I did something really stupid, and it was beneath me."

I think they'd want you to recognize the damage you did to the victim of your crime - particularly if he was a recently deceased titan of the legal industry.

So I don't think the issue was that they didn't like Jimmy's style of speaking. I think it was that they didn't believe he'd truly recognized the error of his ways and changed for the better.

I think they were probably skeptical about the sincerity of many of his responses, but were generally buying them.  I think he came off as lacking real remorse and insincere when discussing the reason for his suspension and the "University of American Samao...Go Land Crabs!" at the end was what tilted the balance against him, and made them start to think that everything he said was BS.

Both, were situations where he should have mentioned Chuck.  He should have talked about how much he loved and admired Chuck and cared for him when he became mentally ill.  How Chuck got the crazy idea about the MV documents and how when Chuck's partner told him that Chuck had totally flipped out, he told Chuck he was right, just to calm him down and make him feel better.  Then he found out that it was a ploy by Chuck and he was hurt and angry and broke in and destroyed the tape, which was also due to a setup by Chuck.  He could then go on about how it was no excuse, but that he was acting under extreme stress and hurt and it was not an act of dishonesty, and that it would never happen again.  blah blah blah.   I think they would have bought that.  

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

I thought that response was absolutely truthful and sincere.  The problem was it was about 11 months pregnant with the expectation that Chuck would be mentioned and yet he was not.  Hence the what influenced you to take up the profession and what does the law mean to you probing questions designed to elicit emotions and a peek at the McGill family dirty laundry.  

The board really had no need to probe the emotional side beyond curiosity.  When nothing was revealed they pounced on the insincerity and the emptiness in all the Scalia and Land Crabs twaddle.  The only real reason the insincerity troubled them was it thwarted their curiosity.   Even after the bitter break in the aftermath of the Davis and Main commercial and no doubt hearing rumblings about the messy dust up between the McGill brothers, the head of Davis and Main not only showed up for Chuck's memorial and offered seemingly sincere condolences to Jimmy.  If the guy with plenty of reasons to bounce Jimmy out of his practice still thought it was the right thing to offer condolences in the light of Chuck's death, the committee members really didn't have a lot of factual basis for declining to readmit him on the basis of insincerity.

I think we need to factor in what we as the audience know from getting a much deeper perspective of the man from both BCS and BB that it would be impossible for the board members to have a grasp on.  The reality is that the board members should have sensed that much lay beneath Jimmy's words of regret and the fact that Chuck's name went unspoken and likely would have chalked it up to what it really is, deep emotions.  Which is exactly what would be expected from someone in Jimmy's shoes under the circumstances.  They could have and should have probed particulars relating to his thoughts on the importance of the ethical practice of law.  Then their decision would have made sense from what they gleaned in the interview.      

That makes sense, except for Bryce's posting of the standards for re-instatement.  I imagine the "clear and convincing evidence of moral qualifications" standard is higher than what's needed to get admitted to the bar in the first place.  I also think the question was appropriate because the reason Jimmy was suspended was because he had destroyed evidence that he had committed a felony.  

That phrase takes me back to the Watergate hearings.  One Republican named Charles Sandman kept on demanding clear and convincing evidence that Nixon had obstructed justice.  This caused the other side to take a day and develop a litany of actions Nixon did with specificity that warranted impeachment.  So for me "clear and convincing" put a pretty heavy burden on Jimmy to demonstrate his fitness to practice, and I don't think that answer did it.   

[Tikichick]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

That makes sense, except for Bryce's posting of the standards for re-instatement.  I imagine the "clear and convincing evidence of moral qualifications" standard is higher than what's needed to get admitted to the bar in the first place.  I also think the question was appropriate because the reason Jimmy was suspended was because he had destroyed evidence that he had committed a felony.  

That phrase takes me back to the Watergate hearings.  One Republican named Charles Sandman kept on demanding clear and convincing evidence that Nixon had obstructed justice.  This caused the other side to take a day and develop a litany of actions Nixon did with specificity that warranted impeachment.  So for me "clear and convincing" put a pretty heavy burden on Jimmy to demonstrate his fitness to practice, and I don't think that answer did it.   

If that's truly what they wanted clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate, their follow up questions didn't indicate that at all.  Your own Watergate example refers to the dissenting voice repeatedly asking for answers with specificity to tip the scales.  The bar committee chose to go on a fishing expedition merely because they wanted to elicit an emotional response invoking Chuck, NOT questions regarding either Jimmy's specific crimes or precisely why he was certain and how he was prepared to demonstrate they would not recur.

Jimmy did tell them the truth when he said that what happened will not happen again.   He could say that without any hesitation because, plain and simple, Chuck's dead.  That doesn't really suffice for the totality of the question in the spirit it was asked.  But I don't doubt that's the spirit of Jimmy's answer.  

[qtpye]

On 10/4/2018 at 10:14 PM, PeterPirate said:

When we first meet Saul he says "My real name is McGill. The Jew thing I just do for the homeboys. They all want a pipe-hitting member of the tribe, so to speak."  

Given this is TV law, I'm going to accept that in New Mexico it is OK for an attorney to use a DBA.  And also that, when that scene was aired, Saul's explanation was intended to be the truth.  However, it's also fine if they do a little retconning and fashion some other explanation.  In Star Trek they spent several episodes explaining how the Klingons got their bumpy heads.  This is a lot easier than that.   And in the end an entertaining explanation is better than one that is 100% logical.  

He also wanted to connect to Walter White on a personal level by revealing that they are both Irish.

On 10/5/2018 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

I love how Jimmy rehearsed facial poses, right before the hearing, but was outraged that they had the audacity to find him "insincere".  

 

On 10/5/2018 at 8:08 AM, Milburn Stone said:

That was useful to read. My reaction to the outcome when I watched was to feel awful for Jimmy--to share his reaction that an injustice had been done, I guess because I'm so invested in the character. But reading those criteria, I realize the committee made exactly the right choice, and made it not out of prejudice, but out of an uncommonly perceptive evaluation of the man. Much as I hated them at the time, kudos to them.

 

On 10/5/2018 at 10:00 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

Yeah, I think his hypocrisy and lack of self awareness are strangely charming.  

There are so many of those contradictions in his case and in the show, in general.  

He was insincere in much of his testimony.  But, he actually was being sincere by not praising Chuck and saying he was his influence, because he resents Chuck and has blocked him out of his mind, and because Kim was his influence for becoming a lawyer, not Chuck.  But, the committee seemed to buy most of his BS, but flunked him for being "insincere" by not mentioning Chuck.  

On a wider scale, the same is true.  Their "insincerity" reason for denial is rather subjective and arbitrary.  They had no real evidence to back up that claim. But, all the crap Jimmy has done for the past year is ample grounds for disbarring him, only the committee doesn't know about it.    It is kind of like a criminal getting away with robbing Steve, but getting falsely convicted of robbing Joe.  

 

On 10/5/2018 at 10:17 AM, ShadowFacts said:

My view is that they didn't deny him only for not mentioning Chuck. I don't think anything he said was actually disqualifying, they could have given him the benefit of the doubt, but in its totality it smelled insincere.  He should have said just about anything other than his last answer.  He really did have an affinity for his elder clients, he could have worked that in or any number of things that Kim might have suggested.  I think he just plain didn't think this out and expected his job and program completion was enough.  Any type of evaluation like this is going to be subjective and the interview part is tricky, that's why he should have prepared.  He's usually keener at this type of interaction.  He was treating the panel more like 'marks' than peers with power over his professional future. 

 

On 10/5/2018 at 12:16 PM, PeterPirate said:

I think Kim could have helped Jimmy prepare for the hearing, but they were also busy returning from Texas following the blueprint caper.  

Switching gears:  

Jimmy said the same thing in the diner scene:  "And I already got a jump on my new practice.  Unexpected bonus of the drop-phone business.  It turns out it's great for client development.  Sooner or later, every last one of those idiots is gonna need an attorney.  Of course, they all know me as Saul Goodman."    

 

Retconning usually changes how we look at a scene or piece of dialogue.  We now have to wonder what motivated Saul Goodman to tell Walt about why he used a different name, and also whether he actually had two ex-wives.  We can't take those statements at face value anymore.   I consider that a minor cost of watching BCS.    

Retconning in itself can be entertaining, and I still consider being entertaining more important than making sense, if such a choice has to be made.  Going back to the Star Trek Klingon head thing, in a DS9 episode they had used humor to hand-wave it away.  ("We don't talk about it with outsiders").  But some years later they used several episodes of Enterprise to explain how the change was the result of genetic engineering that cross-bred Klingons and humans.  Personally, I prefer the first choice.   And I like the dialogue from the diner, too.  They just slipped it in there (haha) without making a big deal out of it.  But If they bring back Howard to make the name change explicit, I guess that will be OK too.  It will be a good and fitting end to the character.    

The genius of the bar hearing was I was feeling so bad for Jimmy. I was like, how dare these bastards penalize him for not mentioning Chuck. Then I started to think about Jimmy engineering the robbery of the Hummel instead of taking the job as a copier salesman. I also took into account taking advantage of CC mobile to sell phones to shady ass people. Jimmy can not follow the straight and narrow, particularly when the alternative is always more exciting and lucrative. The truth is the committee came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. I realized that Jimmy's anger was not so much the audacity of not bringing up Chuck, but a con man who has failed. He is actually less ethical now than he was when he got disbarred. Jimmy gets an amazing high when a con goes well but we have not seen him fail at cons all that much. It must make him feel like shit that what he thought was a straightforward easy con, getting the bar committee to reinstate him, actually backfired so badly. Unfortunately, this was also the con of his life. This is why he was lashing out at Kim so badly. He had failed at the one thing he was a master at (the con, not the law) and it sincerely hurt him in a way nothing else has, including Chuck's death.

[Ottis]

11 minutes ago, qtpye said:

This is why he was lashing out at Kim so badly. He had failed at the one thing he was a master at (the con, not the law) and it sincerely hurt him in a way nothing else has, including Chuck's death.

That's a really good point. I know from personal experience that nothing is as devastating as having someone tell you that you're not good at the thing you think you are great at. The board in effect "told" Jimmy that about his con by not buying it. And Jimmy is gobsmacked.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

If that's truly what they wanted clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate, their follow up questions didn't indicate that at all.  Your own Watergate example refers to the dissenting voice repeatedly asking for answers with specificity to tip the scales.  The bar committee chose to go on a fishing expedition merely because they wanted to elicit an emotional response invoking Chuck, NOT questions regarding either Jimmy's specific crimes or precisely why he was certain and how he was prepared to demonstrate they would not recur.

Jimmy did tell them the truth when he said that what happened will not happen again.   He could say that without any hesitation because, plain and simple, Chuck's dead.  That doesn't really suffice for the totality of the question in the spirit it was asked.  But I don't doubt that's the spirit of Jimmy's answer.  

I don't think the onus was on the committee to ask the right questions, I think the onus was on Jimmy to go into the hearing with the right answers.  Once Sandman established the need for the others to provide clear and convincing evidence, they took it upon themselves to furnish said evidence.  And in Jimmy's case the "clear and convincing" evidence standard is right there in the code.  

Of course, the meaning of "clear and convincing" is subjective, just as "reasonable doubt" is subjective.   Jimmy's answers, even if 100% sincere from his point of view, didn't display a clear understanding of the egregiousness of destroying evidence of his own felonious behavior, imo.  

 

54 minutes ago, qtpye said:

The genius of the bar hearing was I was feeling so bad for Jimmy. I was like, how dare these bastards penalize him for not mentioning Chuck. Then I started to think about Jimmy engineering the robbery of the Hummel instead of taking the job as a copier salesman. I also took into account taking advantage of CC mobile to sell phones to shady ass people. Jimmy can not follow the straight and narrow, particularly when the alternative is always more exciting and lucrative. The truth is the committee came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. I realized that Jimmy's anger was not so much the audacity of not bringing up Chuck, but a con man who has failed. He is actually less ethical now than he was when he got disbarred. Jimmy gets an amazing high when a con goes well but we have not seen him fail at cons all that much. It must make him feel like shit that what he thought was a straightforward easy con, getting the bar committee to reinstate him, actually backfired so badly. Unfortunately, this was also the con of his life. This is why he was lashing out at Kim so badly. He had failed at the one thing he was a master at (the con, not the law) and it sincerely hurt him in a way nothing else has, including Chuck's death.

Even the things the committee would know about Jimmy would be enough to turn him down.  They would (or should) know that he sold drop phones to drug dealers, on the streets with a bodyguard, and that the bodyguard had clocked a cop but only got off because of some Miracle on 34th Street caper.  

Then again, the committee didn't ask Jimmy about Huell, so either they didn't know about that, or the fix was in after all.  Hard to say. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by PeterPirate

[qtpye]

2 minutes ago, Ottis said:

That's a really good point. I know from personal experience that nothing is as devastating as having someone tell you that you're not good at the thing you think you are great at. The board in effect "told" Jimmy that about his con by not buying it. And Jimmy is gobsmacked.

Yes, many times Jimmy's cons are a joy to watch when the victim is an asshole (unlike the poor filing clerk). However, hear I was actually cringing from secondhand embarrassment particularly when he said something to the effect of "That's so Scalia" and his faux humility at winning the sales awards. He thought that it was so in the bag that he was really not bringing his A game and they totally saw through him. 

[scenario]

58 minutes ago, qtpye said:

He also wanted to connect to Walter White on a personal level by revealing that they are both Irish.

 

 

 

 

The genius of the bar hearing was I was feeling so bad for Jimmy. I was like, how dare these bastards penalize him for not mentioning Chuck. Then I started to think about Jimmy engineering the robbery of the Hummel instead of taking the job as a copier salesman. I also took into account taking advantage of CC mobile to sell phones to shady ass people. Jimmy can not follow the straight and narrow, particularly when the alternative is always more exciting and lucrative. The truth is the committee came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. I realized that Jimmy's anger was not so much the audacity of not bringing up Chuck, but a con man who has failed. He is actually less ethical now than he was when he got disbarred. Jimmy gets an amazing high when a con goes well but we have not seen him fail at cons all that much. It must make him feel like shit that what he thought was a straightforward easy con, getting the bar committee to reinstate him, actually backfired so badly. Unfortunately, this was also the con of his life. This is why he was lashing out at Kim so badly. He had failed at the one thing he was a master at (the con, not the law) and it sincerely hurt him in a way nothing else has, including Chuck's death.

Jimmy should be disbarred for the things he's done. But how many innocent people are in jail and people say "So what if they're innocent of this particular crime. They're guilty of something."  I can just see an innocent person acting just like Jimmy did because they were nervous. 

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, qtpye said:

the committee came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

Excellent point—and a point Jimmy and Kim seem to be blind to—which shows how distorted their moral viewpoint has become.

 

 

4 hours ago, Ottis said:

nothing is as devastating as having someone tell you that you're not good at the thing you think you are great at. The board in effect "told" Jimmy that about his con by not buying it. And Jimmy is gobsmacked.

So this event probably served to destroy any vestige remaining of Jimmy's desire to at least give the appearance of uprightness.

[MaryPatShelby]

On 10/1/2018 at 10:02 PM, AEMom said:

Ding!  The mystery of the bell is solved.

 

On 10/1/2018 at 10:07 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

The less I see of Hector Salamanca the better. At least we know how that bell came to be.

 

On 10/2/2018 at 6:11 AM, JFParnell said:

Now don't hate me ... !! ...  but ... I have to say I just didn't give a rip about the origin story of Hector's bell. I'm sitting there thinking, "C'mon! Penultimate episode -- time's a wastin'! -- and we're gonna watch Hector hunched over and drooling for like 9 minutes??!" Raise your hand if you were never all that curious about How Hector Got His Bell.  :)

 

On 10/2/2018 at 9:12 AM, nodorothyparker said:

I wish I found all the cartel stuff half as interesting as the show apparently wants me to because it certainly ate enough time out of this episode.  The actor playing Lalo is charming enough even if I still don't really much care that Hector was again a homicidal asshat and that's how he got his bell.  

Add me to the apparently tiny group of viewers who never gave the bell a second thought.  If I had ever thought about the bell, I would have assumed it had been given to Hector by an occupational or speech therapist. It's not exactly outside the box thinking, and certainly not deserving of a boring soliloquy by a character we've never met and are all of a sudden supposed to care deeply about. 

In the early season(s) of BCS, when it was about Jimmy, his path crossed organically with Mike and Gus on occasion, but now the show seems to have completely dumped any crossover ideas, and are giving us two separate story lines that have nothing to do with each other. Frustratingly we get Kim saying "Let's do it again", and the very next scene is a perfectly planned, perfectly executed con - we never see as much as a montage of them planning it, discussing it, rehearsing it, and maybe enjoying each other's company as they do it.  But we do get to see, to name a few, Nacho rehearsing the pill bottle caper numerous times, a big shoot out at the crummy hotel, guy after guy walking into a diner explaining why they are short on the drug money this week, the Tale of Gus and Hector (with more soliloquy), and on and on.  Seems to be the showrunners have tired of Jimmy and Kim, and wish they were telling a different prequel.  

I really hope they find a way to leave some of that behind next season, but I don't have high hopes.