@@farosizationI get your point but the difference is that most shows don’t just take the main character and ship him off to be a side character, Suits did with Mike for some reason so I think that’s what he means
@@diegodelapenaelizondo8705but surely the leaked video shows the malice that he really wants this guys career destroyed because he believes the doping is true. That’s demonstrable malice and any jury would see the reporter has a personal vendetta against the player. It’s not his opinion anymore. He is stating it as fact in the leaked video. No one can defend him anymore.
@lewishorsman2219 Yeah. That's not "actual malice". It's a poorly named legal term that has confused people since the Supreme Court coined it in 1964 in New York Times v Sullivan. It has nothing, at all, to do with what you'd normally think of as "malice".
"Well if I'm not a lawyer then..." Mike had enough power to completely let that firm collapse if he wanted. All because he was knowingly hired with his past.
He's probably signed something with the company saying he's aware the camera could be on at any time. If not, it could be something to do with new York being a one party consent state.
The client cared more about his reputation and being seen as right than winning the case. That's why he settled. Harvey and Mike would have absolutely won the case in court, BUT it would have dragged this guy into a much larger controversy. - Potential sources would think twice about going to him if they know he'll sell them out later. - More people will threaten lawsuits when he talks smack about them. Him settling and retracting on air is the best legal and reputational move. He doesn't get to prove he was right, BUT by showing he can and will retract (if he gets new info), he can spin this to make himself seem more reliable. It gives him an air of authenticity and journalistic ethic to walk back and correct false information, so people will be more lilely to believe him later. But he's also too dumb and arrogant to see it that way
In a firm setup, the associates do most of the grunt work for the Partner. But at the end of the day, the Partner is still the ultimate responsible person. He can and will succeed without Mike. The efficiency will just vary because Mike is the best associate as per Jessica
Mike is the most unlikeable character on the show because as soon as something dosen't go his way he blames everyone else but himself, he's selfish arrogant and completely untrustworthy.
"...sounds like when he doesn't know that the cameras are rolling" - yeah, you do not have a case, buddy. A recording without consent or even knowledge of the recorded will not hold up in any court.
2:59 "in a school zone" 💀
bro is a menace
sigma spector doesn't care ab them kids
Imagine tanner brought up a speeding ticket from Harvey way back “85 in a school zone “ lol
@@gabbers3819 nah, real speeders dont get caught
Me resisting the urges to make an mkbhd joke
Suits is incomplete without Mike!
Pre Rachel Mike is the best Mike
That’s why the rushed to finish it.
That's just one man's opinion😂
"X tv show is incomplete without the main character"
@@farosizationI get your point but the difference is that most shows don’t just take the main character and ship him off to be a side character, Suits did with Mike for some reason so I think that’s what he means
The closest thing we got to Season 1 case after Season 1
„Ja, a gut one“
Looking back, this story/episode was one of the better written episodes by really highlighting the negotiation aspects of legal work.
Except that that wasn’t actual malice. Actual malice is to knowingly spread lies, and he actually believed he was juicing.
@@diegodelapenaelizondo8705but surely the leaked video shows the malice that he really wants this guys career destroyed because he believes the doping is true.
That’s demonstrable malice and any jury would see the reporter has a personal vendetta against the player.
It’s not his opinion anymore. He is stating it as fact in the leaked video.
No one can defend him anymore.
@lewishorsman2219
Yeah. That's not "actual malice". It's a poorly named legal term that has confused people since the Supreme Court coined it in 1964 in New York Times v Sullivan. It has nothing, at all, to do with what you'd normally think of as "malice".
Jeff Davis is a fantastic improv comedian. His Improvaganza stuff is gold.
"Well if I'm not a lawyer then..."
Mike had enough power to completely let that firm collapse if he wanted. All because he was knowingly hired with his past.
I remember the first time seeing this and thinking, “Is that Jeff from Whose Line?”
This was probably my favorite episode on the first run I had of the series
S02Ep9
the opposing council was on ENTERPRISE
Win this case that you shot yourself a hole in and somehow expects ur lawyer to win for u when u are taking their weapon away from them
Wait a minute, is that Charles Tucker from Star Trek Enterprise?
Man, I screamed Trip!! When I saw his face XD
For anybody wondering, the Kevin Costner movie they're talking/referencing about is Bull Durham.
Yeah...Harvey literally says it. "You going Bull Durham on me?"
Thanks for that share
@@ChipJohnson😂 ya I know that's hilarious
How was that clip of him being recorded without realising allowed to be submitted as evidence? Surely that’s not permissible evidence
He's probably signed something with the company saying he's aware the camera could be on at any time. If not, it could be something to do with new York being a one party consent state.
@@uncleasmo657Probably more about the expectation of privacy in a tv studio.
you don't need permission to be recorded for it to be admissable legally in ny
To retire is also an admission of guilt. Dude had to take it to the mat.
“Drop the suit and retire”
Am i the only one who acknowledges how absurd this is to ask of a player?
I miss these early seasons where it was just Harvey and Mike together
Except you can't bring in surprise evidence. Also, its still opinion.
The client cared more about his reputation and being seen as right than winning the case. That's why he settled.
Harvey and Mike would have absolutely won the case in court, BUT it would have dragged this guy into a much larger controversy.
- Potential sources would think twice about going to him if they know he'll sell them out later.
- More people will threaten lawsuits when he talks smack about them.
Him settling and retracting on air is the best legal and reputational move. He doesn't get to prove he was right, BUT by showing he can and will retract (if he gets new info), he can spin this to make himself seem more reliable. It gives him an air of authenticity and journalistic ethic to walk back and correct false information, so people will be more lilely to believe him later.
But he's also too dumb and arrogant to see it that way
I Love you Gabriel❤
Which season and episode was this
S02E09
Trip!
How much was the cheque for?
$150,000
Commander Charles Tucker III, Esq.
As Harvey/Mike walking, street sign = Heenan Pl, Toronto Location 😆 not New York
The series was filmed in Canada
why they meeting outside Anfield
😂 brilliant
BMO field 😭
Yes call Kevin Costner an old man again and we all are going to have a problem 😂
Trip has a second career?
any idea if there's another season?
Spin off coming soon, the suits L.A
@leonardokrisman7225 any official release date?
Is that Jeff Davis?
Straight from WHOSE LINE!
How much was the check. 100k?
Kevin IS a old men
But hey its just an opinion, A Man's Opinion. Thanks for watching.
Have a question. Do you think Harvey would win court cases without Mike?
@@N.a.syed. what is it?
He's been long winning cases before Mike came.
@@swsrock4739 that’s what Harvey said
In a firm setup, the associates do most of the grunt work for the Partner. But at the end of the day, the Partner is still the ultimate responsible person. He can and will succeed without Mike. The efficiency will just vary because Mike is the best associate as per Jessica
@@cheemie1188 thanks
Mike is the most unlikeable character on the show because as soon as something dosen't go his way he blames everyone else but himself, he's selfish arrogant and completely untrustworthy.
LOL. You are one of three people who think that
These first seasons where amazing...then it got hairy
"...sounds like when he doesn't know that the cameras are rolling" - yeah, you do not have a case, buddy. A recording without consent or even knowledge of the recorded will not hold up in any court.
Depends on the state no? If New York allows one party consent then it might be allowed?
Imagine posting a comment , being so confident about it and still being wrong. Ruhtard
@@LokTar_Ogar93new york does have one party consent
In this case the sitting judge allowed it.
Ok
does anyone know much he actually got
100k
its actually 150k
Its only 10k, same check he bet against the IT guy Benjamin
@@jamescada6176 That was in the previous season. That was a check from Louis for "turning in" Rachel.
S02E09
second
First