That was a whole lotta verbiage in circles, to avoid simply admitting “no, I mischaracterized what she said, because she never mentioned the copy shop or anything that could be proven to refer to covering up a crime.”
Funny how there are several of us who do not accept your definition of what the “standard” definition is. But if it makes you feel better, you can substitute “does not have incontrovertible proof and/or metaphysical certitude” in the places I said “doesn’t know”. OK?
She also knows Jimmy—in the biblical sense.
I think people are missing the significance of Jimmy’s lawsuit threat.
This is (I think) the first time Jimmy helps a drug dealer commit a crime. He’s not just defending them in court, he’s offering (unsolicited, even) to facilitate their commission of a crime using his expert knowledge of the law. It’s a big step on the road to becoming the Saul Goodman we know and love.
Maybe it didn’t come across as believable to you (though it did to me). But I think we’re supposed to see that he’s good at this. If you or I went up to a person in authority and threatened unfounded legal action, we’d probably bumble or lose confidence when challenged. We’d cave easily, knowing it was unfounded. We might have a moment of conscience that holds us back. For whatever reason, the vast majority of us would fail at the task, assuming we even had the balls to attempt it.
But this is the same Jimmy who scammed intelligent people into paying hundreds of dollars for a coin worth maybe $2. This is the guy who got at least one woman to put out by convincing her he was Kevin Costner. Most of us saw Breaking Bad, right? Well Jimmy got the violently unhinged criminal Tuco Salamanca to go easy on a couple of conmen who targeted his grandma. That took real skill. Browbeating a barely-paid-minimum-wage van driver whose only goal in life is to cover his own ass is certainly a cakewalk in comparison to that.
So we saw that Jimmy persists, he parries the challenges, he is a master of the “big lie”, and he can keep it up all day and night long. That’s why he was successful as Slippin’ Jimmy. It’s not as easy as just falling down on someone’s property and asking them to pay you for your troubles. It takes charisma, knowledge, skill and never accepting no for an answer. And that’s how he will become successful as Saul Goodman, too.
Great post!
I hesitated to enter the “knows” debate but I have a compulsion to add my observation.
Kim believes that Jimmy did it. But she also knows that even if in some bizarre situation that she would have to prove that he did it, she doesn’t have enough evidence.
I didn’t mischaracterize what she said. She was clearly telling Jimmy to cover his tracks at the copy shop, and that’s what he did immediately after she made the statement. You keep talking about things like ‘proven to refer to covering up a crime’, but that’s YOUR words, not mine.
You can argue with a dictionary if you want. But since I’ve made it clear both what I consider the standard definition and what definition I’m using, I’m not sure why you continue to argue as though I’m using whatever weird definition you are.
Why don’t you just say that if that’s what you mean? I mean, the times I’ve talked about Kim knowing about Jimmy’s document games, it’s been in the context of what Kim knows and how she feels, not something about incontrovertible proof or some kind of gnostic debate on whether anything is knowable. And why do you keep pretending that I said something about incontrovertible proof? I mean, that is an even higher standard than the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ needed for a criminal conviction! I have no idea why you even think ‘incontrovertible proof’ is relevant, much less think I made a claim about it.
WRT the argument over whether Kim knows Jimmy engages in unethical behavior, and specifically if he doctored the MV documents: Kim is trying to maintain plausible deniability with regards to Jimmy’s activities. Yes, by her actions it is clear that she knows Jimmy doctored the MV documents, but that is a deduction which might legally be considered speculation in the absence of any direct evidence. She can deny under oath that she does not have any direct knowledge that Jimmy did it - she didn’t see him do it, and he won’t let him tell her anything about it.
I even wonder if that specific dealer ends up referring some business his way.
This episode really was key in Jimmy becoming Saul, from the flashback reminding us of his childhood disdain for his father’s honesty and generosity (and being taken advantage of) on. The worst thing possible to Jimmy is being the person played. The music business twins screwing him on the deal in the wake of his brother’s trying to destroy his career reminded him that people suck and that screwing them bigger is better.
There is also a strong parallel with BB. WW was offered the money he needed by the Schwartzes, his former partners who became Grey Matter and ego prevented him from taking it and had him preferring to a less legit path rather than be beholden and allow those who cared to help him. Jimmy is of course doing the same with Kim, who wants to be his partner in more than just the business sense and help him through this rough patch. There is nothing but ego that is mandating Jimmy do scams to get by just as there was nothing but ego that drove WW to his path. In both shows we at first see other reasons why they might be driven to it, maybe WW really was most concerned about providing for his family, maybe Jimmy was driven to this by what his brother had done to him, but in both fragile ego, refusing to allow others to help, is what drives them into their paths.
Now against that is that he took her help in his legal defense, but I see that as almost more of his manipulating her to do it.
Jimmy’s cons have often been him committing felonies. So morally/legally maybe a matter of opinion if this was lower, yes compared to (near the line) legitimately defending sleazy criminals, not necessarily compared to when Jimmy committed fraud himself. But it does fit the eventual Saul Goodman business model better than any previous incident, I agree. SG becomes a facilitator of criminals, not a con man per se.
I found it so-so believable but I agree the idea is to suggest the SG future based on the Jimmy skill set.
That was Tuco appearing in BCS wasn’t it? Or OK maybe what you’re saying is BB viewers more fully knew what a lunatic Tuco was when they say the BCS sequence with him.
Talking Tuco down from killing to breaking legs was actually in the first season of BCS, not in BB; Saul/Jimmy never interacts with Tuco in BB as far as I remember. The problem I had with browbeating the van driver is not whether it’s something that Jimmy can do in the abstract, but that the scene itself wasn’t convincing. The Tuco scene involved Jimmy appealing to Tuco’s sense of justice and fast talking in a way that seems to have worked for just about everyone. Meanwhile the van driver doesn’t involve any fast talking or tricky psychology or appeals to things the driver doesn’t know, he pretty much just says “I’m gonna sue you because I can and I’m not even going to bother listing real grounds to sue you, I’m just going to talk about back problems”. I think the scene could have been done much more convincingly - and if you’re not going to do it convincingly, then do like they did with the guitar brothers and don’t show the convincing, just that he won.
I think he sees crusading arm in arm with her against his brother’s injustice really differently than having her pay the bills while he does nothing. In one they’re digging in to a problem together, in the other he’s just taking a handout.
You say ego; I say hubris. An excellent summation and the best one I’ve read yet.
Sorry, that wasn’t written as clearly as I thought it was, but Corry El figured it out:
DSeid, wonderful post about the parallels with BB.
On what Kim “knows”: what **Bubba **and **Marvin **said.
And Pantastic, you just don’t seem to understand that this is in large part a legal show, and you’re trying to use layman definitions. You said upthread “I know some people insist that somehow she doesn’t know he did it, but FFS she told him that if he did it he should go to the copy place and close up loose ends”. If you said that about Kim in court, you would be committing perjury. Even out of court, it might be considered slanderous or libelous. (Might.)
Tuco was killed in episode 2 of the second season of BB, and Saul doesn’t appear until episode 8, so no.
Agreed. I think it was basically plausible that Jimmy could intimidate the guy by threatening a lawsuit, it just wasn’t adequately set up to make it appear so.
Nah, I’m on Pantastic’s side on this one - I’m pretty sure he gets what the show is about. Though to some extent I think you guys are arguing past each other. You’re insisting that Kim has legal deniability and can’t be pinned down definitively on what she knows by other people in-show, which is all well and good. Pantastic is saying that legal deniability aside, of course Kim actually knows pretty much what Jimmy was up to and it is eating at her. And he’s absolutely right.
She may not know every single step of how he managed it, but she sure as hell knows he falsified documents for her. She’s not stupid.
Yes, I’m posting on an English-language message board and not only am I speaking in English, but I’ve made it clear multiple times that I’m using the regular definition of the word “knows.” I’ve said it clearly and repeatedly, if you don’t understand it then it’s really your problem at this point, not mine. If you want to use some weird definition with whatever absurd properties people are claiming for it, just post what definition you’re using. But don’t try to say that it’s the legal definition if you can’t even point to a legal definition of ‘know’ that fits whatever it is you’re trying to say. Especially the part where apparently the standard for whether you can say that someone ‘knows’ a fact is higher than the bar to find someone guilty in court.
No, I wouldn’t be committing prejury, I would be giving honest testimony. It would likely get thrown out since it involves interpretation on my part, but there is nothing false in the testimony, much less something that would actually get charged as perjury. In addition I wouldn’t actually make that statement in court, but in case you hadn’t noticed we’re on a message board discussing fictional characters who only exist in a TV show, and essentially no one writes message board posts in the style of court testimony.
Yep. And I’ve already said multiple times that no one in show could actually prove that she knows Jimmy did it, and that there’s no evidence to convict her of anything to do with Jimmy’s altering escapades, so I’m not really sure why people keep trying to argue about that.
Precisely. As I mentioned a few posts back, she is maintaining plausible deniability.
But that’s a straw man. No one is suggesting that she thinks the smart money is on Jimmy being completely innocent.
Precisely.
You are the one who brought it up again out of the blue! Sheesh.