[RobBlake]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Although I'm just quoting this post, I'm going to respond to both in kind.

None of us would have faulted Chuck had he just been honest with Jimmy. He could have told him that he didn't think Jimmy should get a job at HHM right away, that he should build a name on his own first to set aside issues of nepotism, but he didn't do that. Instead, he sent his partner down to act like a hatchet man on Jimmy's aspiration.

He could have told Jimmy that he doesn't believe that he's earned the spot yet, and he could have supported Howard's statement at the HHM meeting (instead of acting shocked at such a choice).

His cowardice and deceitfulness in handling the situation with his brother (who has also been his sole caretaker and only real advocate) is beyond the pale.

Moreover, Chuck's rationale may hold up to the viewer, but Chuck and HHM both lack the omniscience that the viewer of the show has. We know things they don't.

What does HHM know about Jimmy's prosecution of the case? They know the info he has collected and the case he's built. What do they know about the Kettleman case? That after the Kettlemans fired HHM and went to Jimmy because they didn't like the deal he got them to return and accept the deal that was previously unpalatable.

What does Chuck know? He knows that Jimmy has been busting his ass as a PD and doing good work. The shadiest thing Chuck even has a clue of is the billboard stunt.

We know about Mike's hijinks and Jimmy accepting the bribe, but neither HHM nor Chuck do, and that's integral to an evaluation of their rationale because we know they aren't making decisions with the information we have.

Very nice opining on the perspective of audience knowledge vs character knowledge that often gets overlooked