Suits: The Devil You Know

Suits S01E07: “Sucker Punch”

There were several “sucker punches” in this week’s aptly titled episode of Suits. There was, of course, the literal sucker punch that Harvey landed on Travis Tanner’s face as well as the figurative one Donna landed when she refused to testify in the mock trial Pearson-Hardman had orchestrated to smooth out the wrinkles in their case against Tanner—namely, that it would be hard to sell Harvey as a lawyer with integrity to a bunch of strangers when most of the people he worked with, including the partners who hold his job in their hands, didn’t actually see him that way themselves. There was also the shocking line of questioning/badgering that Louis dealt when Mike managed to convince Donna to testify despite her apprehension. She surely wasn’t expecting it to be a good time, but Louis definitely crossed a line that had her walking away from her former peers humiliated. Finally, there was the one we’ve been waiting all season to see: Daniel Hardman’s betrayal, just when he had started to make us question our haste to take Team Jessica’s side way back at the beginning of the season. Yup. He went there.

For the first time in the series, Harvey’s “damage” was discussed openly and seriously. It’s been hinted at since the beginning that Harvey came from not only a poor family, but possibly an abusive one, and while his background has shaped him into the driven paragon of secret morality that he is today, it’s not something that Harvey finds pride in. Harvey’s past goes beyond being a “touchy” subject—it's one that is absolutely verboten, outside of the pleasantly patriotic detail that he started out working in Pearson-Hardman’s mail room and eventually ended up being made a partner.

But the thing is, as Mike put it, “People are who they are.” As much as Harvey tried to deny his roots and their continued influence on his life, at his core, he can’t help but care. In a desperate bid to show the partners who Harvey Specter truly is, Jessica assaulted his defenses with a ruthless line of questioning designed to bring it all out. Harvey was raised not to be weak—“If they think you’re weak, they’ll walk all over you.” Caring is a weakness in the armor; to appear to care is to point a flashing neon arrow at those weak spots. Case in point, Harvey’s response to Louis’s brutal questioning of Donna, cruelly revealing to the court that Donna’s last boyfriend dumped her because she constantly chose obligations to Harvey over obligations to their relationship, demanding that she answer the question, “Do you love Harvey Specter?”

Harvey, a known hardass who, if the widow at the center of the Coastal Motors lawsuit was anyone to judge by, regularly dished out similar treatment to those unlucky enough to be testifying for the other team, couldn’t stand to see someone he cared about be subjected to the same treatment. Whether his feelings for Donna are or were romantic at one time was irrelevant because the fact that he had any kinds of obvious feelings toward her at all was damning enough in his eyes.

Yet ultimately, it was that burst of vulnerability that restored Harvey’s credibility with the partners in attendance of the mock trial. He became human, and therefore relatable and understandable. It also probably helped that, despite their heated exchange in the aftermath of Donna’s testimony, Jessica managed to get Louis to admit that despite his personal hatred for his rival, Louis believed that Harvey was a good lawyer who deserved his position and, most importantly (in the context of the Coastal Motors lawsuit) was not the kind of lawyer who would have willingly committed fraud to advance his case.

Louis’s honest testimony was enough to convince the partners not to cut Harvey lose and gave Jessica the confidence to pursue a trial against Tanner despite the unfavorable odds, but Mike took it upon himself to find a Plan B. After all, Jessica wouldn’t be able to coax a favorable portrait of her defendant from the prosecuting attorney during the real trial. Armed with his assertion that “People are who they are,” Mike dove into Travis Tanner’s old case files, certain that he would find something illegal SOMEWHERE. That’s just the kind of lawyer Tanner is.

When Hardman helped and later utilized whatever mystery transgression they had against Tanner to force a favorable settlement from the slimeball, Harvey reluctantly agreed to settle—one more sucker punch to add to our list, with Jessica counting on his tie-breaker vote to be in her favor, a stance that meant going to trial against Tanner. Hardman used the opportunity to finally make his move and cast doubt on Jessica’s capability to manage the firm. With that in mind, I’m not entirely convinced that he and Mike found ANYTHING on Tanner. After all, when Harvey asked Mike what they’d used against him, Mike claimed not to know. I wouldn’t put it past Hardman to have maybe paid Tanner off in order to force Harvey onto a side against Jessica, leaving her wide open for attack.

So it looks like we have to save Jessica now. And what of Donna? Her return to Pearson-Hardman seems no more likely than it did two weeks ago, possibly even less so considering the mortifying nature of Louis’ questioning. Would YOU want to go back to working with those people if you were Donna?




Case Notes


Jacinda Barrett, Gabriel Macht’s real-life wife, guest starred as the jury expert brought in to advise Pearson-Hardman. They were fun to watch.

– Still no word on Rachel’s LSAT scores. Or whatever test she took. I don’t even remember anymore. It happened, right? I didn’t just, like, hallucinate an entire storyline?

– I’m glad that the lie detector test failure on Mike’s part got chalked up to nervousness. My first though as soon as Louis asked him where he went to law school was, “Oh god, not this again.” Granted, I’m sure it WILL come up again, eventually, since Mike’s ongoing fraud is one of the most important aspects of the show, and that’s fine. I just didn’t feel like dealing with it on top of Harvey being emo, Donna being exiled, and Hardman being a dick.

– You know, I felt bad for Louis, even after what he did to Donna. It was awful, but man, he was remorseful, telling Harvey, “What just happened to that beautiful woman in there— that’s on you.” In a way, you could argue that Louis’s ability to put aside his personal fondness for Donna to ruin her for what I guess could be argued as “the good of the company” illustrated Harvey’s point about caring being a weakness. However, Louis did care. So is the weakness still there? Let’s think like Harvey for a minute.

– I feel like there needs to be a line of Harvey Specter action figures. I mean, he’s always doing random exciting things, almost like a manlier Ken doll. We could have Sports Car Harvey with bonus Ferrari play set and Baseball All-Star Harvey with a little plastic high school MVP trophy. This week, we can add Boxing Champion Harvey Specter with special “sucker punching” action to the collection.

Suits "Sucker Punch"

Comments (105)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
again, one of the best episodes yet. my theory is that it is just too weird that Hardman came back right before Tanner showed up.. I think they work together and it was all orchestrated and Hardman didn't find ANYTHING on Tanner and it was just a plan to make the partners settle and to make Jessica look weak in front of them so that Hardman can take her place and Tanner can take Harvey's. They are slowly alienating everyone loyal to Jessica and Harvey and Hardman's the one who planted that memo in their old case files... I mean I just think Donna would remember something like that...
Reply
Flag
Louis is potrayed as being a human being with all it's complexity and Harvey with his hubris is getting more and more two-dimensional.Also, I really, really don't like Jessica.Hardman ,on the other hand, is not the bad guy if one seeks verisimilitude in the series: The fact is that despite all that happened to him and the greatest effort to erase his name from the firm's heading, it is still there. If his name is on the door, they why should he not have his place on the table.He is certainly more entitled to it than Jessica. As for Jessica, she is the kind of person who has done many, many, many bad things and just got away with it, which is fine if you have Joe Kennedy's values. Her support for Harvey is part some kind of attraction and her belief that he is her man in the firm.Otherwise, he would feel the thrust of her knife on his back very hardly.
Reply
Flag
Well, technically Mike did not fail the lie detector test, because he did answer the question truthfully... He does HAVE a degree from Harvard Law.... he just didn't earn it.
Reply
Flag
I loved this weeks episode. The crowning acheivement of which was Louis' speech in the bathroom. Everything he said was spot on and to those people who keep asking why is everybody mad at Harvey should watch it again and hopefully they'll understand.



Harvey Specter is the king of the hill and people tend to fall over themselves trying to help him. Zoe's evaluation that He thinks men want to be him and women want to be with him is true and not just in Harvey's mind. He oozes this confidence that makes him the most desirable person on the block. Add to that the fact that he geneuinely cares about other people and you have a man that even Jesus might say is perfect.



The problem is in spite all of this he is incredibly guarded. He's afraid that if someone sees him without his armour then he will lose all of the power and reputation that comes with it. Since in truth that power is the only thing he thinks he has in life then he would never ever want to risk losing it. Yet in trying to protect his perfection he is in fact leaving himself open to greater defeat.



That is why the people who respect and admire him are angry at him, because from where they are sitting they can see the exhaust port that leads to the main reactor. What's worse when they try to bring up this weakness he just casts aside these notions and insults them. There is nothing worse than someone you care for not even taking the time to acknowledge something that you said to them. It makes it look like a one way street when it comes to their affection. You can give me all the love and adoration you want, but do not expect it when you do something that I should be grateful for. This would be especially infuriating if you know that the person despite his hard candy shell has a soft and chewy center, which most if not all of the people who were dogging Harvey this week are aware of.



Eventually you decide that the only way to get through to the person that they are exposing their backside to the enemy is to give them a spanking so they will learn their place and that is exactly what happened in this episode. Everybody who was attacking Harvey was attacking him so that he could see the faults present in the way he was approaching this case. Rather than let the facts speak for themselves, which as many have already said would not have called for him being disbarred, he continued to poke the bear that is Tanner and act in a flippant manner which only exacerbated the entire situation.



That is why whenever Harvey essentially started whining about the way they were treating him everybody kept saying that he brought it upon himself. It was not his action but his attitude that put him where he was. Louis and Mike were just doing their best to show him that. Say what you will about Louis, but as much as he has a sibling rivalry with Harvey he cares about him and wants him to get through this. That goes double for Mike. The best way to help him here was to hurt him and what they did would be nothing compared to what Tanner could do. These two actually like Harvey, Tanner hates him. Which means he will be half as understanding and three times as vicious as they were willing to go in an Trial Run. Harvey being Harvey wasn't prepared for it and on some level viewed it as betrayal, when in fact it was the best possible thing that could have been done for him.



Alright that was a lot of words and I got a little heavy so now some levity. First I was super happy when Mike paraphrased Kevin Bacon's opening statement from A Few Good Men, because its my favorite movie. This ecstacy was squashed when they had Rachel point out he was paraphrasing A Few Good Men... I miss when TV Shows used to think we were smart enough to get references and they served as rewards for the media obsessed as opposed to lessons in Pop Culture for the casual viewer.



Gripe Two is from the same scene when Rachel asked what would happen to Mike is Harvey got fired/disbarred. The concern felt like it came from a place where she knew his secret and since we know she doesn't know it came across less as concern and more as condescension regarding Mike's worth to the firm. Surely Rachel has to have noticed that Mike is a valuable asset to Pearson Hardman outside of Harvey's shadow, so why would she insinuate that the only reason he is worth a damn is because he's being mentored by Harvey.
More+
Reply
Flag
I think it's gonna turn out that Hardman falsified the memo and harvey and jessica are just playing till they get proof. then he'll go to jail and donna will come back...re-set.
Reply
Flag
Louis is more human this season. I would love for him to "date" Donna.

I think that the writing, acting, etc are amazing on this show. They should get an award nomination for showing us smart TV over the summer. This is the opposite of "Reality TV". Good job USA Network!
Reply
Flag
I think donna needs to get it on with someone even if it's Louis.
Reply
Flag
This was a great episode. Louis and Harvey in the bathroom was a great scene, and Louis is really growing on me this season! It's great to see storylines not evolving around Mike. Harvey and Louis are always great together, whether it's a funny storyline or a serious one like this one. They are just great to watch, and I really like it when Louis is right for a change.
Reply
Flag
I always love these two together. They have great chemistry (in non-romantic way LOL) and I love to watch these two actors playing off each other. Last episode's ending scene and this episode's bathroom scene are equally rivieting.
Reply
Flag
Donna broke the law by destroying that memo (remember Mike told her not to do it for that very reason), so her coming back would have to be by some miracle. Maybe leveraging The Mike Secret Jessica shares. But why would she want to come back after having her dirty laundry aired in front of the entire management of her company?



Jessica lost a lot of points in my eyes using the mock trial as a tool in her war with Hardman. His timing was viciously impeccable, using Harvey's tie-breaking vote against Jessica, when he raised serious concerns about her ability to lead the firm. Hell, I am starting to have doubts. Jessica Pearson is no Diane Lockhard.



Rick Hoffman owned this ep. He brought it, put it out there, then brought some more. Especially of note: Something about the way he played Louis's perfect storm of self-disgust and wake-up call in the bathroom confrontation with Harvey just rocked.
Reply
Flag
It's nice to see all the love this deserving show is getting this season. I loved it from the start but the general consensus that it's gotten so much better is true. I really don't like to debate plot points because when I love a show I trust the writers to please me - which sometimes they fail like the dreadful ending of LOST. But for the most part they get it right and keep me happy. My only complaint is not enough Suits as it its with many of the shorter season cable shows. It's so nice that when the network season is over now to have all this wonderfulness to count on through the summer months - Suits - Leverage - Royal Pains - Damages - Longmire - The Newsroom - and my new favorite The West Wing, which I missed first time around...
Reply
Flag
Season 1 of Suits was really kind of weak, what with every week being "Oh my god, what if Mike gets found out?" But season 2 keeps getting better and better. I still, however, hold fast to my theory that Louis will be on Jessica's side before this is all over.



And as far as Harvey Specter Ken dolls go...this is the best I can do:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Hot-Toys-12-THE-SPIRIT-MOVIE-The-Spirit-1-6-Action-Figure-Send-EMS-/251112904896?pt=US_Action_Figures&hash=item3a777ed8c0#ht_13321wt_1181
Reply
Flag
That's great. I knew he was The Spirit, but I didn't think of that in relation to the Action Figure suggestion. He has one already! :)
Reply
Flag
Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what Harvey did wrong when it comes to the fraud case. Not fighting for Donna more? Not wanting to settle and be disbarred? When Louis went off in the bathroom (well done, by the way) he blamed Harvey for the way he treated Donna on the stand, but I really don't know why. Anyway, I knew Hardman was a snake. I just hope Jessica isn't too pissed that Harvey voted to settle instead of go to trial.
Reply
Flag
The way I saw it... when Louis went off on Harvey in the bathroom, it wasn't about what Harvey did wrong in the fraud case. When Louis took the stand, he basically said he didn't think Harvey was dishonest.



BUT... at the beginning, when Harvey approached Louis to be the opposing counsel in the mock trial, Harvey belittled, challenged and insulted Louis into taking the role of Tanner. Harvey was arrogant, believing he was invulnerable, and that Louis wasn't up to the task. Even when Louis said there would be nothing "sacred" enough from shoving Harvey's ass into the ground and told Harvey not to come crying to him when he loses, Harvey walked away mockingly.



Basically Harvey baited Louis to bring it on... Louis did as Harvey asked for... and it was Harvey's fault that he (Louis) attacked Donna to discredit and weaken Harvey.
Reply
Flag
The question of what exactly Harvey did wrong in this situation to merit all the hatred that was being aimed him during this episode was something that really bugged me after I watched the episode and it spoiled a little bit my enjoyment of the episode. When Louis told him "what happened to that beautiful women in there, that's on you, not me" I wondered exactly what he was blaming Harvey for. I came to the conclusion that Louis was blaming Harvey for not settling and for dragging this case to trial since by doing so, he runs the risk of Tanner twisting Donna's loyalty to him and embarassing her and possibly sending her to jail. Also, Harvey's reputation is what put him in this position in the first place, but you can also argue that his reputation also has made the company a lot of money.



It's weird because Sarah Rafferty (the actress who plays Donna) has described Donna's sentiments in this situation in a very good way. She said that Donna is very hurt by the fact that Harvey did not respond to her loyalty to him by reciprocating, but at the same time, she knows the trouble that she's caused him and she's very apologetic about it. The show has yet to fully show that she is apologetic for her actions. We did get a little glimpse of it when she almost started crying when Harvey told her that he needed her at the mock trial to defend him. Maybe she's just too angry right now to see things clearly and to see how much she's at fault for the current situation.



Besides that, I thought that this was an extremely strong episode and I loved how the show displayed the parallels between Donna and Harvey when they were both on the stand in the mock trial. They were both harassed by people that they trusted and emotional revelations were made by both of them. In response to Louis' question "Do You Love Harvey Specter," Donna responds that it's not that simple. The complications in their relationship (the fact that it's influenced by the hierarchial relationship that they have at work) are what's holding her back. In response to Jessica's question "What kind of damage was done to you?" Harvey replies that when you start caring, people walk all over you. It's difficult for him to open up because he's afraid of being powerless in a relationship because he cares so deeply for the other person. That's what holding him back. It's similar to the parallels in THE CHOICE where they both justified the reasons for why they didn't pursue a relationship because "The feelings go away...eventually" and because "there's plenty of time to find the right girl."
More +
Reply
Flag
What Harvey did wrong is develop a reputation for doing anything to win. Now, this is actually an advantage to have most of the time... it makes negotiations more likely to come out in your favor, and lawyers spend FAR more timenegotiating than they do in court.... but it also means that Donna's loyalty is a fair topic for the opposition to attack. If HE would cheat to win, and she is loyal to HIM, then SHE would help him cheat to win. It all comes back to whether he would cheat to win.
Reply
Flag
That's a fair point. I didn't consider how his reputation for working outside of the normal parameters may have contributed to this whole mess. I know that Donna's loyalty is relevant but it was confusing as to why Donna's horrible decision were being attributed to Harvey, but like you said in your last 2 sentences, they all kind of circle together and thus would make fraud plausible to a jury. But reputation aside, Harvey didn't know about the document, Donna made the decision to destroy it partly because of Harvey's rep, but also because it made her look bad for her oversight. If it hadn't have been her time stamp on the doc I don't think she would've reacted the same way, so it's strange that there is so much support for her despite the fact that she essentially dug her own grave.
Reply
Flag
It's the moral of "the boy who cried wolf". If you are perceived to have a history of lying, your claims that "but this time I'm totally not lying! Promise!" won't carry much weight.



And another way of looking at "she dug her own grave" is "she threw herself on that grenade" (an action that can be very brave, very stupid, or both).
Reply
Flag
So she threw herself on that grenade and dug grave for Harvey.....
Flag
misslee022884 has a point, though. In this particular case, Harvey HONESTLY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT DOCUMENT, because his secretary hid it from him - and then destroyed it. You can't put THAT on Harvey; that's all on Donna. Mike was right, when he tried to force her to come clean to Harvey; she had her chances, and didn't. So, her termination was right and correct under that situation. Was she right in expecting Harvey to fight for her, like he's done for Mike? Maybe. But, let's not forget the one central point in all this: vis a vis THAT document in THAT case, Harvey did NOTHING wrong.



I loved that bathroom argument between Lewis and Harvey ... it proved two things: that Lewis genuinely cares for Donna (while also being frightened by her, like everyone else except for Jessica and Harvey), and also that he was RIGHT when he told Harvey that everything that'd happened was on him - HARVEY. And Harvey KNEW Lewis was right - remember that look on his face after Lewis left?



Say what you will about how far Harvey will go to win ... he didn't cross any lines in this situation - except to operate back then on faulty information (he WASN'T aware of the document's existence). If he had been aware? I think things would have been different ... and Donna would still have a job.



Much as I love Donna, she did wrong - and the only people who realize it at this point are Jessica, Harvey, Lewis, and Mike.



I hope she comes back (I'm sure that she will .. although at this point I have no idea how), but when she does - she and Harvey will have a CONVERSATION, in which she will HAVE to admit what she did was wrong, and then they can try to move on from there. Until that happens, this situation will remain like it is.
More +
Reply
Flag
Yes. To all of that. Thank you. I mean I think a lot of the fans are so caught up in their love for Donna and how crappy the situation is that the fundamentals and facts are being thrown out the window. Essentially Harvey didn't do anything wrong and it was a bit frustrating watching some of the individuals who knew he didnt technically do anything wrong treat him as though he did.
Reply
Flag
Unless they were just preparing him for what Tanner would have done.



That was what I thought. Somewhere along the line there was an opportunity to cut a deal and Harvey's ego would have none of it. Hence why it came down to what it did.
Flag
It's not that Harvey orchestrated a real cover up of the fraud case, but to a jury it could be easy to make it look like he had. A document convienently goes missing, is found and then destroyed; add that to the cases he worked at the DA's office where all kinds of evidence went missing, pretty easy to make him look guilty.

Yes, it was the DA that was corrupt and Donna acted on her own, but Harvey is supposed to be a smart guy how could he not know?

And Louis was right to go postal on Harvey, Donna might have misplaced the original document but then she had a choice; do the right thing or protect Harvey. She chose Harvey and made things worse not only for herself but everyone else at the firm as well. Her loyalty to Harvey put poor old Louis in a mock trail where he had to rip Donna to bits because that's Tanner would do, the only difference being Tanner doesn't give a rats ass about Donna and Louis idolises her. So if Harvey wasn't so Harvey, Donna wouldn't have done something that stupid and Louis who have had to be in that mock trial - so it's all Harvey's fault.
More +
Reply
Flag
I agree with everything you said, except the last paragraph. In my opinion, Donna's loyalty is completely up to Donna. As you said, SHE chose to protect Harvey. SHE chose to destroy a document that was the focus of a fraud case. SHE made things worse for everyone. So regardless of whether Harvey acts so Harvey-like, SHE should've known better. So Harvey is to blame for having the questionable reputation. Donna is to blame for being torn to bits by Louis. But that's just my point of view. :)
1
Reply
Flag
Was it really Donna's choice or did she do what Harvey would have wanted her to do if he'd been able to ask her to do it?

Harvey made senior partner not because he was a walking legal encyclopedia but because he reads people and is really good at manipulating them. That sub-concious\automatic manipulation could have persuaded Donna to do any number of things.

It's a bit of strech, but there's a line from a Dr. Who episode.



Davros: "The man who abhors violence. Never carrying a gun. But this is the truth, Doctor. You take ordinary people and you fashion them into weapons. Behold your Children of Time transformed into murderers."



Think of Harvey as the Doctor with less time traveling, fewer sonic screwdrivers and no exploding planets with Donna & Mike as the hapless enthralled assistants but less murderery.
Reply
Flag
I guess my question is, who is Tanner representing in the fraud case against harvey?
Reply
Flag
He WAS representing the family of the deceased. Hence why Harvey went to see her the previous episode... to get her to drop the case.

Then again, that's on Paper. Who knows what's REALLY going on behind the scenes.
Reply
Flag
I don't understand why no one is going after Donna for the BS that she did since she caused it all. Doesn't matter that she pleads the fifth.. Mike saw her with the files, etc. His testimony will be enough. Also, I don't understand how Tanner can sue anyone.. The people who were hurt by the fraud (the lady's whose husband crashed) dropped the case, didn't they? Also, wouldn't the bar association have the authority to disbar someone, etc.?



I'm not a fan of Donna after these past few episodes.. She's acting self righteous; getting upset that harvey "didn't fight for her" after all the trouble that she caused? Lol I'm sorry but I don't want to see her face ever again. I don't see how she thinks she did nothing wrong because she "was trying to protect him". The story line is becoming less and less believable..
1
Reply
Flag
It's highly unlikely that Tanner (or anyone else outside the firm) knows that Mike knows anything about Donna's handling of the file. As for the lawsuit, the plaintiff sued Coastal Motors and Pearson Hardman. Coastal Motors has bought its way out of the lawsuit, but the claim against Pearson Hardman remains. There is a bit of ethical rule skirting with regards to settlement offers... a lawyer is required to convey any settlement offers to the client, and the client decides whether or not to settle, not the lawyer.
Reply
Flag
I lost all love for her when she destroyed the memo. I felt played by the character: this super smart, impeccably sharp, business woman who ultimately was a little girl with a crush on the teacher and through it all away. Good riddance.
Reply
Flag
This was the best suits episode to date! the Louis-Donna showdown in the mock trial was heart breaking. And the Louis-Harvey showdown in the men's room was simply brilliant. I LOVED LOVED LOVED everything bout this ep
1
Reply
Flag
The firm of Litt, Nothing & Nobody has to be key to Hardman's plans, Daniel only won the settlement vote by one vote but Harvey won't vote the same way in the no confidence vote which leaves Daniel one vote down. Yes Daniel could persuade one of the invisible senior partners to switch votes but dramatically surely it would be better to make it a tie then call in the junior partners to cast thier votes and have it all rest on Louis, with Hardman dangling a senior partnership for Louis if he votes to get rid of Harvey & Jessica
Reply
Flag
A couple of problems. A partnership CAN have different partners' votes weighted differently, but any major business decisions must include ALL the partners. Also, a partner can demand an accounting and leave at any time (even if contractually obligated otherwise... the partnership contract can impose penalties for early withdrawal but cannot prevent them.)

Reply
Flag
Oh boy, oh boy!!



I was Litt up on "That's on You!".



What a heart wrenchingly beautiful episode. Well-written, and greatly acted.

Reply
Flag
The dynamic scenes between Gabriel Macht and Jacinda Barrett were definitely fun to watch. You could tell Gabriel got a little out of character when his eyes weren't always lasered in during their one-on-one conversations, which is the typical Harvey stare in an intense conversation.
Reply
Flag
She was brilliant. And the obvious chemistry just made it all the better.
Reply
Flag
The Graduate argument: classic.



"Not in Tootsie."
Reply
Flag
I have always thought that Louis will play a pivotal role in the Pierson Hardman battle. I mean how can he not? I don't think Louis was really ever a bad guy he didn't do things cause he was malicious though he did enjoy some of it.



In a way what Louis did today was what Harvey was trying to teach Mike during the nurses union thing. Its dirty but its part of the Job Tanner would have probably done worst maybe with a faked sex taped of Donna or something.
Reply
Flag
I have no doubt Louis was all about the team by playing as dirty as Tanner would. Holding back would have done the firm a huge disservice. What he did had to hurt deep down inside but ultimately, it was the exact right thing to do.
Reply
Flag
Better let me look at that tape, just to make sure.
Reply
Flag
man i love the opening....



louis crack me up



"oh you just got litt up"

Reply
Flag
Louis is getting more awesome. Harvey and Mike are both getting less likeable. The show is getting Litt up.



Funny that "#savedonna" was on the screen the entire episode. No way they would advertise it like that if they weren't planning to bring her back.
Reply
Flag
Totally agree. I was thinking that she was so great on this show, maybe she got a better offer. But once I saw the hash-tag #savedonna, I knew it was all BS. They are definitely bringing her back somehow.
Reply
Flag
My guess -- what would make for the best television??? In this case, I think that with the sexual tension Donna provided seemingly on the way out, it's time for something new -- perhaps a pissing contest. I think the 'leverage' Hardman used was offering Tanner a position at Pearson Hardman -- this would 1) make pursuing Harvey a conflict of interest, so Tanner would have to drop the case, 2) make Tanner angry because he'd be forced to bury the hatchet, and 3) keep Tanner and Harvey at each others' throats for many episodes to come....
Reply
Flag
I don't think that its a simple job offer I am thinking more along the lines of disbarment and possible Jail time. I think that is the only way he would let Harvey off the hook. Tanner is so owned right now that Hardman can make him do whatever he wants and the interesting thing is that Mike doesn't seem to know what it was.
Reply
Flag
Fair enough, but from a writers' perspective, Tanner's got to be 'owned' in such a way that he'll be coming back again and again and again -- he's a great nemesis. And I doubt he can keep coming back trying to 'ruin' Harvey in one way or another -- that'll just get old. Having him within the firm would make him a fixture, and the potential storylines virtually endless...
Reply
Flag
Its a BRILLIANT idea. Getting hardman to make Tanner his right hand man while Harvey is Jessica's will balance them out in a lot of ways. Of course they will destroy each other. I doubt they can do it right now though. Maybe next season. Hardman needs to take control of the firm first but it will probably happen only as an extension/proxy war of the Pierson and hardman's battle,
Reply
Flag
Its a BRILLIANT idea. Getting hardman to make Tanner his right hand man while Harvey is Jessica's will balance them out in a lot of ways. Of course they will destroy each other. I doubt they can do it right now though. Maybe next season. Hardman needs to take control of the firm first but it will probably happen only as an extension/proxy war of the Pierson and hardman's battle,
Reply
Flag
Except that the role of "inside-the-firm-nemesis" is already filled by Louis. No need for another.
Reply
Flag
Ah, but they're making a real effort to get us to like Lewis. The writers point out on virtually every show these days how talented he is, how underrated he is, and now, with all that ballet stuff and rachel 'liking' him, he's starting to get noticed as more multifaceted than just a nemesis. And harvey's never considered him a worthy opponent. Tanner, on the other hand, has had the upper hand most times he's been onscreen, and it's been making Harvey crazy. Tanner's a nemesis on a much different, and more scintillating level. We'll have to see.
Flag
Whoa. What a thought. Good gravy would that piss Harvey off. Obviously since his billing rate and bonuses are equal to the GDP or some small countries, Harvey wouldn't quit but it sure would make battle lines clear. Neon even.
Reply
Flag
WHAT. AN. EPISODE!



Is it just me, or is this show getting better and better? Suits has firmly solidified itself as my second favourite summer show (Breaking Bad being the perennial champion).



Let me just say right off the bat (*sports metaphor*) I don't at all agree with the Harvey denouncing. Where do Mike and Louis get off?! How is any of this Harvey's fault? He did nothing wrong. He didn't bury evidence or commit fraud. All he can really be accused of is inspiring too much loyalty. Donna is the one at fault. She destroyed the memo. The fact she did it in a misguided attempt to protect Harvey is irrelevant.



Although, I do appreciate why Donna is upset. Her entire life revolved around Harvey. We don't know the full extent of their past relationship, but we do know all she sacrificed for him. She very well may be in love with him, so her unfounded anger s completely understandable. He simply hasn't shown her how much she means to him. In her eyes, he let her go without a fight and doesn't seem overly upset by her firing. We know this isn't the case, but in classic Harvey fashion, he very rarely removes his carefully secured mask of indifference. He wrongly equates caring with weakness. Harvey should take a note from Harry Potter and shed his inner Voldemort (*nerd metaphor*).



When you think about it, he's really one of the most complex characters on television. Harvey Specter is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, ensconsed in an air of invulnerability, sheathed in a $5,000 suit. He is charming, intelligent, debonair, witty, handsome, ambitious and cuttingly clever. But he is also as many deviations of arrogant you can think of (pretentious, narcissistic, egotistical, conceited and pompous). That is the Harvey that was first presented to us. That is the Harvey we came to know and love. What is particularly amazing is that throughout the latter half of the first season, and especially in this truly spectacular second season, even more aspects of his multi-layered character have been revealed. He is loyal, honourable, ethical, conscientious and principled (tired of all the adjectives yet?). And he does care. He is loathe to show it, but despite the coldly calculated visage, he is not an emotionless machine. He's basically the most interesting man in the world (minus the Dos Equis). The guy has so much depth you could write a comic book style origins story about him. I'm VERY interested to hear more about his childhood.



And who didn't see the Daniel Hardman backstab coming from a mile away? We all knew he was just biding his time for the right moment to take back control of the firm. As others have already postulated, I'm almost positive this entire situation was orchestrated by Hardman. Tanner very suspiciously reappeared right after Hardman came back to the firm. And the confluence of events seems just too perfect for his devious means. Donna IS the best damn legal assistant in New York, so the memo MUST have been planted. Plus, that's really the only way she could ever return to Pearson and (hopefully not for long) Hardman.



(P.S. I actually felt a physical sense of satisfaction when Harvey punched Tanner. I REALLY hate that smug son of a bitch.)
More+
1
Reply
Flag
Dude. You can take this however you so choose, and I don't even care about the word play and games you could have with it. But I love...you so much for this well written, supremely eloquent piece of awesomeness right here! I'm loving it hard! In fact if this comment was some exorbitant wine...my non-drinking arse would greedily consume the entire bottle in all of it's prententious glory..savouring each drop. Or...I dont know. Something like that. ; ) I could not have said it any better, and therefore I give to thee my stamp of concurrence and approval.
Reply
Flag
Haha! You remembered my wine metaphor! I hope you let my comment air a bit before consumption. Enough cannot be said for decanting (yes, I drink too much wine).



YOU can take this however you so choose, but your stamp of approval means more to me than even any of the TV.com writers. I just respect your opinions and analyses so much. I'm sure other people reading this might be thinking "get a (chat) room you two!", but I don't care. You have this certain unquantifiable mystique about you. Not to mention you're hilarious! And you are loving this season of Suits just as much as I am. So, in case my bordering on excessive gushing hasn't made it explicitly clear, the feeling is most definitely mutual.
Reply
Flag
Exactly. Donna screwed up 4 years ago (supposedly) and screwed up more recently by destroying evidence (even if it was planted). She works for Harvey, therefore Harvey is at fault, who works for Jessica, therefore Jessica is at fault. Rarely do you ever see sh!t roll uphill to this extent.



I also don't see how, if this did go to trial, you could ever prove Harvey did something wrong to the extent of being able to disbar him. Harvey would deny everything, Donna would take the 5th. Donna comes off looking guilty, Harvey not so much, but nothing would be proven to the required measure.



Are you paraphrasing Winston Churchill or an episode of Seinfeld? :) ("a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma")



I agree about Harvey, but I actually came away from this episode admiring Louis for his multi-layered depth of character (the wide range of emotions in men's room scene in particular - okay, that sounded weird lol).



Also agree with everything on the Hardman / Tanner / Donna sitch. But (much the same way it's hard to prove negligence vs Harvey) how will they prove that the document was planted and bring Donna back? Will Louis get Hardman to admit what he did at the endgame (taking over the firm from Jessica / ousting Harvey) and, in an ironic twist of fate, save the day with the dictaphone that Hardman gave him?
More +
Reply
Flag
Good points. I REALLY like your endgame theory. It just makes sense. The only way I can see proving the memo was planted is by admission on Hardman's part. And if Hardman is successful in his coup, then it's certainly possible he could reveal his dastardly plan to Louis, gloating in victory and believing Louis is on his side. But contrary to Harvey's opinion, I think Louis has too much honor (is that the right word? Maybe integrity?) to work for someone so devoid of ethics. Louis just might end up being the hero of season two.
Reply
Flag
You can only take the 5th with regards to things that could be used to incriminate yourself... not things that would tend to incriminate your boss. Plus, of course, there will be evidence at the other end (yes, we sent that memo...)

When you start with evidence that the memo was sent to Harvey, combine with his secretary taking the fifth on any question regarding her handling of the memo, and add in the evidence of Harvey's motivation to lie, his protestations of innocence will not carry much weight.

On the other hand, you are right that mishandling a discovery request is not typically a disbarment offense. Disbarment generally requires that a lawyer be shown to be dipping into his clients' money.
Reply
Flag
Great episode. First off contrary to what you said I don't believe Hardman and Tanner are working together cause Tanner looked positively pissed when he went to give Harvey the settlement offer (if i remember correctly he thought Harvey had Hardman in his pocket).

Second I really feel bad for Louis, although he is a jerk he and wants to beat Harvey he went out of his way to destroy Donna on the stand regardless of his personal feelings towards her.

Am I the only one who is on team Hardman? Yes it has been said he is the King of Jerks and bad guys but looking at it all those who say so are all people who are actually douches themselves also until now he hasn't actually done anything that would justify the way Jessica and Harvey have been behaving towards him. So until he actually does something positively evil other than taking his former job cleanly ( well as clean as a lawyer can get) am on his side. Even though gotta love a bad guy who uses the good guy's book to beat the "good guys".
Reply
Flag
This just brings up the key question... if Pearson and Hardman get along so poorly, why are they partners?
Reply
Flag
For the moment, I'm team Hardman, in the sense that I think he seems like a better person than her. If this had been real life, I would be rooting for him. But I think she's a better character on the show.
Reply
Flag
Really? I thought Tanner's anger seemed kind of feigned. And I am most certainly NOT on Team Hardman.
Reply
Flag
It's just compared to what Harvey and Jessica are capable of doing (even without breaking any laws) I just don't Hardman could be any worse, I mean he has not done anything bad per se for a guy tryin to get his position back. I don't believe Jessica or Harvey react this "nicely" if put in his position
Reply
Flag
As much as I love the episode, I remembered something that bothered me about it. It's very small, but for whatever reason, I feel like nitpicking.



It seems to me that the Suits writers are starting to over-use the epiphany. I'd have to re-watch all the episodes to really know how many times they've done this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher than ten times that Harvey or Mike say or hear something in conversation (which each other or someone else) and immediately draw a parallel to a problem that needs solving, like an epiphany.



It happens from time to time in real life and lots of shows do it... but to me, Suits is starting to do it way too much and it often seems too forced.
Reply
Flag
House did the "epiphany" thing ALL the time. IMO, it worked better in the loosey-goosey world of medicine, rather than the more structured world of law.
Reply
Flag
I thought the same thing! They use the exact same device way too much. It is not longer special or even believable, and is becoming predictable. But some of the acting is just stellar so I let it slide. I mean, I roll my eyes at some of the one liners, too.
Reply
Flag
If any USA show overuses the epiphany, it's Necessary Roughness. Callie Thorne has a much better "Oh my god, talking to you just inadvertently solved a work problem" face.
Reply
Flag
The Closer does that almost every episode. I like the show, so I guess I let it slide. But you're right. It might happen once in a while, but not every week.
Reply
Flag
Quite the powerful episode. While I was watching, I kind of lost track of time and it felt like I'd been watching for over an hour. Then when it ended, I felt like it went by too quickly and I wanted more, hehe.



The situation that Harvey and Donna are being put in because of her mistake is gut-wrenching and really tugs at the strings of my heart. *Ahem* I mean, um, it's like, uh, totally awesome and shit, yo. Anyway, I loved it. I love all the characters. I love that Daniel Hardman finally attacked. I can't wait for the next episode.
Reply
Flag
I see where Louis is coming from, he's in love with Donna and he was trying to get her to admit her feelings for Harvey so they would have to be dealt with, making a way for her to return to work. Louis wants Donna back as much as the others do. I was on team Jessica until these past few episodes where she has been shown to be just like or worse than Harvey. Hardman likes Mike so I'm not too concerned with him retaking control of the company. Harvey needs to lose just to be reminded of how important the people are around him. Where's the Rachel storyline? Those glasses were out of character for her.
Reply
Flag
Amazing episode! The actors, series, and writing team deserve an award nomination. This is my favorite summer show!
Reply
Flag
Impressive and dramatic episode from beginning to end. My god, I'm actually starting to like Louis. I still like Harvey more, but in this episode, Louis definitely came across as the sympathetic victim due to Harvey's "weakness is bullcrap" nature. Donna overreacted to Harvey but at the same time, her not answering the love question definitely raised some red flags that will haunt her if she does return.
Reply
Flag
I'm also more on Jessica's side now than ever. Like you said, Hardman saw the opening and attacked like a damn great white shark. I really hope she smashes him like a fly!!
Reply
Flag
really good episode.. but I honestly don't see how Donna could return after destroying evidence like that, even if somebody else used her signature stamp.



also, Rachel in those glasses (even though the style was ugly)? oh man<3
Reply
Flag
actually I thought of away but it will be weird and difficult. Jessica and Harvey loose to Hardman and split they open a new firm Pierson and Specter. They take all their clients and Rachel, Louis, Mike and bring back Donna. Weird?
Reply
Flag
and yes this case never went for trial..........so if some how say harvey or jessica or someone else discovered the fact that say this whole memo thing was fake......then on what basis Hardman or anyone else would accuse Donna infront of jury.........if no such evidence ever existed then there is no such case of destroying evidence......and yes there are too many strong well wishers inside the firm..........Harvey, Mike,Jessica,Rachel,Louis......whoops.....who are capable of doing........we all know that,,,,,,,iffff some how it comes infront of jury......
Reply
Flag
but............ for a second just think that this whole thing was a goddamn plan of Hardman and Tanner, i.e this whole memo thing never ever existed......say some how they managed to root it there in the evidence room....then this could make a way for Donna back into the firm...........
Reply
Flag
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Reply
Flag
No doubt that this episode was incredible......but the scene what i've been thinking last few days is may be both Hardman and Tanner are working together to bring Harvey,Jessica and Team down and may that whole memo thing(memo which donna supprisingly discovered 4 years later)which caused all this mess is nothing but just a well planned game of Hardman and Tanner.

Yes i'm saying that say that Donna dint receive any memo 4 years before and this whole thing was planted by Hardman and Tanner. Consider it as true for a second, that means later on if say Harvey discovered the same some how, then this could open a door for Donna to make a come back.

I'm just saying this on the basis that Hardman lied about her wife suffering from cancer which proves that he can make a move to any extent doesn't matter whatever it cost for something he need badly.
Reply
Flag
This was an incredible episode. I was enthralled from the moment it begin to the moment it ended. I mean within the first two minutes Tanner got cold cocked and the last minute Jessica's position at the firm was in jeopardy and it was nonstop intensity inbetween.

-I love it when they peel back layers of their most enigmatic characters. Harvey is my favorite character on a show where I have multiple favorites. I've always sort of got his character, but understanding a character based on perception and intuition is one thing. Actually getting to see more depth in the character that confirms why you like them so much or coincides with how you see them is even better. I totally identify with how closed off he is and the entire emotions thing...and how he's a walking contradiction in that he cares too much all the while giving the impression that he doesn't care at all. Clearly that was one thing they were dying to really focus on and the way they worked it in from the very beginning to the end was so well crafted. Starting with how much he cares and is protective of Jessica...so much so that he sucker punched Tanner for being a dick... and ending with him biting the bullet and agreeing the settle because he truly does care about the firm and his co-workers and friends. Even his relationship with Zoe and how much he cares for her worked in brilliantly. It didn't seem like his loyalty, his care for others, or his integrity should ever be an issue because as an audience we see it so clearly despite how subtle he is with it...but I suppose it's reasonable to believe that his coworkers and the partners didn't. I don't know. For the sake of character development the entire mock trial thing was amazing. It not only gave us more insight into Harvey as a character, but gave us insight into his relationships with the other characters, and insight into the other characters themselves.

-Louis was amazing. Again. I am so beyond thrilled that characters like Louis and Jessica who weren't nearly as prominent last season are placed in the forefront this season. I love seeing them. From the way in which he worked with Mike, to his entire Mock trial performance, to his confrontation with Harvey in the Men's room (that's a damn busy room)..Louis was truly amazing. Rick Hoffman has really gotten the opportunity to show off how great he is and I for one am glad to see it.

- Jessica. I love the woman and even though I cringed at how adamant she was about going to trial I knew why it was she did it. To avoid what happen at the end. I also love how pivotal her role is in the relationships even if it's unitentional. The mentor thing that is Daniel, Jessica, and Harvey...or Jessica, Harvey, and Mike. Even the complex ambiguous relationships that are Jessica, Harvey, and Donna. All season she's been getting mixed feelings from the fans. She and Harvey both. I guess I just don't quite understand it. I think she's been quite awesome this season. I loved how she took little moments like what Harvey did for her and what he did for Donna and witht he help of Zoe dug deeper into Harvey despite his discomfort to make it work to their advantage. And her approach with Louis was awesome as well.

-Donna. I love that woman to pieces. No doubt about it. I don't however think it's fair that she's as angry as Harvey as she is. I don't think Mike should be either. I don't think all of this blame falls solely at Harvey's feet. I agreed with Mike in that everyone is paying...but it's not just Harvey's fault. I understand why Donna did what she did, but she should have talked to Harvey first...and the moment she shredded that paper after Mike specifically told her not too...everyone's hands were tied. No way she would have gotten out of that predicament unscathed and with her job in tact. As much as I love her...she shouldn't have. I felt so bad for her when on stand though. That questioning was brutal. I would have fallen back on semantics. Loving someone is not the same as being in love with them. She worked with Harvey for over a decade and he's her close friend as well. She cares about him and does love him...that wouldn't have implied that she was head over heels in love with the guy. I'm sure at this point in caring about Mike she probably loves the kid too. That would have been my argument at least.

-Daniel Hardman was officially proven to be the dick that they've said. I'm not surprised in the slightest. I knew the moment he was playing judge that the shizz was about to hit the fan. they aired out all their dirty laundry in front of him and gave him even more ammo. I wouldn't be surprised if he sent Tanner after them and I am surprised that Mike went along with this mysterious document used to blackmail Tanner w/o checking it for himself. Daniel got just what he needed to go up against Jessica. My question however becomes the voting. For a settlement vs trial it came to a draw with Harvey being the deciding factor. I'd think the Jessica v. Daniel thing would be similar.
More+
Reply
Flag
Do you have a blog or write in some professional capacity? You are too good to be just a casual commenter.



Do you want to know why I think this second season has been better than the first? (Don't you hate rhetorical questions?) It has had significantly less to do with Mike. I like him alright, but he's probably the least interesting character (other than Rachel) on the show. Louis has come into his own. Jessica has been given significantly more screen time. And the writers have started to seriously delve into what makes Harvey tick.



Last seasons central story arc was Mike's secret. Harvey and Jessica vs. Hardman has made for much more compelling theatre.
Reply
Flag
Gee Fringe. You're making a gal blush. Honestly it always surprises me that anyone even bothers to read my comments, let alone actually enjoys them. I tend to ramble...a lot. In fact everytime I comment it's usually my rambling a bunch of unfiltered thoughts...until I have the self control to hit the submit button before I further embarass myself with my epic long musings. I don't have a blog and I'm not even remotely close to being a professional anything. LOL! But dude, I'd have asked you the same. You kill it with the comments bro.



Yes. I completely agree with that. Don't get me wrong, I love Mike to pieces, and clearly one of the major points that made Suits so fantastic last season was the bromance between he and Harvey. But in diminishing Mike's screentime w/o necessairly diminishing his role, it has opened the door for all these other great characters to have more screentime. It's aided in development and showcased some great interactions and broadened the plot. I'm loving it. I completely agree with you. I love Mike more than Rachel, but yeah the most interesting and complex characters to me have been Harvey, Louis, Jessica...etc



.
Reply
Flag
Wait, when did Daniel act like a dick? I only recall him acting like a responsible named partner. They definitely should have settled and if Jessica's handling of the situation caused the other partners to lose faith in her, he definitely should have stepped up. As I see it, he's not being the dick, he's being the responsible adult. Did I miss him doing something wrong?
Reply
Flag
He's being a dick under the guise of being a responsible adult. If not for my clearly being Team Jessica and Harvey all the way...I can honestly say that Hardman's villianous ways are genius. He's conniving in the best way possible. He's clearly the king of "playing the man". I love what his character offers in being an antagonist.



They shouldn't have settled under the previous arrangement, no. Harvey hasn't done anything worthy of him being disbarred. But the latest one...sure, I'd have probably settled if I had no strings attached to anything. I'm just saying I know why Jessica didn't want to settle. Settling regardless of what happens still comes down to admitting guilt. that's the perception when one settles..and for a firm that relies heavily on their image...I understood why Jessica would have wanted to take their chances in court. Settling on an issue as damaging as that screws with their image....and their reputation. Especially Harvey's. It opens the door for his integrity as a lawyer to be questioned from that moment on. And given his association with the firm..it opens to door for the firm's integrity to be questioned down the road. Taking it to court would have clearly been a huge risk (although I still don't think it should have been based on what little evidence they had...I mean it was a risk if they wanted to keep Donna safe too) but it made just as much sense as Daniel's "I just want this to go away so let's settle approach". Despite Jessica being all "mama bear" her bias didn't necessairly impair her having decent judgment when making that call.



Daniel was a dick as far as using that moment to call into question Jessica's ability to run the firm. If not for my love of the others, I'd appreciate his approach. It was brilliant and if I were nearly as cuthroat as he I'd have took the same approach. He was the ultimate observer, very cunning, he took full advantage of Jessica not playing judge in the mock trial and was given front row seats to the firm airing out all of it's dirty laundry all the while gathering even more intel outside of what he's already observed, to use as ammunition against him however he so chose too. How Harvey is perceived by his coworkers, the obvious bond between Harvey and Jessica, Louis' jealousy of Harvey and craving for praise, Mike being the loyal do-gooder. He's an excellent advesary...and he'd have a foot to stand on if his motives were purer. He doesn't care about the firm despite claiming to, he just cares about making Jessica and Harvey pay and winning against them. It was evident the moment he called them back for the second vote. He was relatively patient this whole time, but he pounced on that opportunity a bit too fast and it could possibly backfire.I wouldn't be surprised if he orchestrated the Tanner thing himself.
More +
Reply
Flag
Responsible, probably. Still a dick? Yes.



The way I see it, Daniel wouldn't really be a dick if he hadn't frequently told Jessica and Harvey that he had no intention of going after them. Whenever Jessica and Harvey brought up the fact that they don't trust Daniel, Daniel kept saying he's a changed man and was just trying to look out for them and the firm. Harvey, despite believing Daniel was going to go after him and/or Jessica, ultimately decided to accept the settlement and hoped that Daniel had in fact changed... then BAM!, Daniel attacks and is still the same snake that just wants his job back.
Reply
Flag
I agree with this completely. Jessica treats Harvey like a son and was putting him ahead of the firm. Daniel was just reigning her in.
Reply
Flag
This is probably one of the best episodes of TV I have seen this year. It was very well written and all of the actors knocked it out of the park.



I think Harvey's past is what the finale is going to be. However I am not worried as some are about this being resolved. Because Mike I think inadvertently solved it and I think Hardmann figured it out. Here is my theory, Donna is the best legal secretary in the city, hands down. She simply wouldn't have made that mistake, not on something that important. And that knowledge should have logically brought up the question of if she actually did this or not. It all seems to convenient that Tanner knew that they were hiding something or committed a fraud. I am sure given Harvey's past that there were hundreds of cases that he could have looked into. So why that one? I still think Tanner planted the memo, because as Mike pointed out, that is what he would do because he is a scumbag. And why Tanner doesn't really care about the case, he just wants Harvey gone. It is personal, he was embarrassed at their last tangle and wanted to hurt Harvey, and what better way to do that than take away what he likes to do most. I think Hardmann figured it out or found out how and used that against Tanner saying that he could use it to get him disbarred or he could keep it quiet for a settlement sans Harvey's disbarment. Use the whole case to get Jessica out of the top seat. Get in the top seat, get Harvey canned and then it is a win win for the both of them. Of course this is just a theory.



As for Donna, she brought this on herself. Whether she actually missed the memo or not she shouldn't have shredded it, she should have brought it to Harvey. And at that point they could have taken a good look at it and authenticated it to make sure it was real. Her outrage is based more out of fear and embarrassment than I think hatred for Harvey. Because she does love him and doesn't want to be without him in the capacity that she has. However Louis was spot on. He had to do that because that is what Tanner would have done. And he was right, this was Harvey's fault. The only reason people think it he could have done this is because he has them believe that he could be the type of person to do this. He appears to be a Tanner like individual, but in reality he is just a grown up Mike.





Such a great episode. I think they should submit it for emmy contention.
More+
Reply
Flag
I have to say this is probably my favorite episode of this show so far. I know a lot of people "love to hate" Louis but I think he is my favorite character. He's not the cocky, good-looking, golden boy that is Harvey and he pays for it when it comes to recognition and career advancement. Everyone expects the worst from him so he might feel like there is no point in proving them wrong. The scene this week between him and Harvey in the bathroom was SO good! Honestly, in that moment I disliked Harvey more than I disliked Louis. (I'm also not liking Jessica very much but that is for another time, though I'm sure (?) I'll pick her over Daniel.) Great stuff, great acting. <3 this show so much!
Reply
Flag
I agree that the bathroom scene was really good. Glad to see Louis holding his own in a scene with Harvey, and leaving him speechless. Jessica is sort of a female version of Harvey. At their core, I believe they both care very deeply but showing it is a sign of weakness for them. Hardman, on the other hand, shows no sign of real remorse or concern for anyone; he is simply out for revenge (fun to watch for a while, the bad guy for this season, but hard to get behind). Even though I like Louis more now, the petty things he has done out of jealousy or a feeling of inferiority irks me. Still that character, who is just as complex as Harvey, helps make this show better and richer.
Reply
Flag
YES! To all of that! You're so spot on. I suppose my bias comes through here, but it's easily why Harvey and Jessica are two of my favorite characters on this show. I can so relate to them...and they really are so much alike it's insane.
Reply
Flag
My theory of Harvey's damage is that he tried and failed to protect a younger brother / brothers from some kind of abuse at home - or he protected him to great cost to him personally - either way the brother is now a mess anyway and Harvey feels guilty. This would explain his protecting of Mike's secret which, considering how Harvey is mainly about 'numero uno', is pretty out of character.
Reply
Flag
I remember that she already went to Law School, but failed repeatedly the Bar.
Reply
Flag
This was a pretty good episode, as has been this season so. I'm still in love with Donna I must say.



The whole Tanner thing was indeed weird. I thought it would be Mike to find something out, instead we have no idea what made Tanner cave yet. Maybe the promise of making partner at the firm? With a side dish of overthrowing Harvey as Senior partner? I could see that happening.



One thing I don't get is why people are mad at Harvey... I mean Donna can argue he could have fought for her, but when you admit to have shred an old file that your boss's bosses are looking for...guess the best expression I can come up with is 'LOL', only in a show you'd hope to not get fired. How is it on Harvey that Donna is in love with in an got fired for making a huge mistake? That part of the plotline does elude me.



Last question: When did Rachel get totally hipster glasses?
Reply
Flag
I believe Donna's really the only one mad at Harvey for her getting fired, and most of that seems to do with respect. She feels he didn't respect her enough to fire her himself... and he didn't respect or care for her enough to put up any sort of fight to try and keep her from getting fired.



The other people are mad at Harvey because of the situation he (and Jessica) are putting all of them in. Jess and Harv were dead set on going to trial for a case that is almost impossible to prove innocent, and if he loses in trial, the whole firm is badly damaged. They'd much prefer it if he settles, gets disbarred, and lets the firm (and all its employees) off the hook.
Reply
Flag
I agree with you regarding Harvey. I'll even risk the backlash I'd receive when saying that as much as I love Donna...and I do, I truly adore that woman...she overreacted big time. There wasn't much that Harvey could have done and to throw that up in his face just kind of sucked. I understand why she's angry and I understand why she's choosing to direct that anger at Harvey...it's what we as humans do. But I don't think it's his fault. He would have and could have protected her like he did Mike if he seen any of what transpired coming...if she would have given him a heads up. Donna's motives for doing what she did were honestly pure...she wanted to protect Harvey, but she did screw him over worst despite her best intentions. There was nothing else that could have went down. Then to compare her situation to Mike was just off. Appleas and Oranges there. Mike still is in jeopardy...but her blunder was so public that it was unavoidable. No way would she have been able to keep her job after that. Somebody had to take the fall for it, and unfortunately it was her. Harvey didn't want to see her gone...and Jessica didn't want to have to fire her. As far as the love thing...I guess we don't know enough about how that all went down.
More +
Reply
Flag
I think most her anger about Harvey not having the decency to do it himself or even bothering to contact her until he needed her again which is kind of douchey.
Reply
Flag
Well said, woman. As much as Donna is my long lost soul mate, she really is just over reacting and looking for someone to blame other than oneself, which to be fair, a lot of people can't do or have a really hard time doing. The thing is, I get why she would feel that way even if I don't agree with it. But Louis's speech, I really don't get. Is it because he feels envy for the love Donna has for Harvey, that the speech is so heartfelt? Is it something else we don't know that he knows about them two? I'm really hoping he knows something the audience doesn't, because if not, the writers are trying to get the message that it's Harvey's fault that Donna is in this mess and they forgot to tell us why we should think it's his fault. Unless we're supposed to believe all of this is on Harvey for not doing anything about the feelings that might exist between he and Donna.
Reply
Flag
RE: Louis' speech in the bathroom...



When Harvey approached Louis to be the opposing counsel in the mock trial, he belittled, challenged and insulted Louis into taking up the role of Tanner. Harvey was arrogant to believe Louis wasn't up to the task, even when Louis said there would be nothing "sacred" enough from shoving Harvey's ass into the ground and told Harvey not to come crying to him when he loses.



Basically Harvey baited Louis to bring it on... Louis did as Harvey asked for... and it was Harvey's fault that he (Louis) had to attack Donna.
Reply
Flag
Yeah. At some point in the episode...I couldn't help but think that Harvey was simply being punished by everyone for being himself. Which was kind of unfair. The underlying of Donna's punishing him falling on the fact that maybe he's too emotionally distant to express his feelings about her whatever they are....his being punished for I don't know..not breaking his neck to be super close to colleagues. It popped up throughout the episode, Mike, Donna, Louis, Zoe,and even Jessica...sort of punishing him for being him. Oh and Rachel...which don't even get me started on that. And the double edged sword that came with them clearly liking and loathing him for the same reasons. And it also was odd how contradictory it all was. From the beginning it was so clear that he was a guy who genuinely cared about people but pretended not too...and then they played it up big time in this episode all the while attacking him for being emotionally damaged and/or detached. I mean they played up how much he does care from punching Tanner because of the crap he was saying about Jessica, to the usual tidbits of him being proud of Mike while jesting, to the entire thing with Zoe, and him ready to pounce on Louis because of how he questioned Donna, to the way Mike's and Louis' words affected him, and that final shot of him when Hardman brought up that second vote and he realized that Jessica may be in trouble. But all throughout you had some of everybody going off on him for being an ass...most of them people who know him well enough to know that he isn't as callous as he pretends to be. And the irony that his advesaries in this...were the ones who knew how caring he was and used it to their advantage to rile him up and destroy him. I mean Tanner knew how to rile Harvey up by getting him emotional and Hardman has been using Harvey's well hidden care for his coworkers and the firm against him since the moment he appeared on screen! It was kind of insane...and even though part of me was agitated with that it was so well written that I couldn't not love every second of it. I totally felt for the guy the entire episode and was more in tune with his character than ever. Brilliance.
More +
Reply
Flag
Yes, it would have been the LSAT, and LSAT scores arrive by email in about 3 weeks, so yes, if the timeline is anything like real time, they are overdue. However, if this is one of those shows like The Vampire Diaries or Teen Wolf where each year of the series is only 2 months in the show, who knows? I don't think we have enough information to go on.
Reply
Flag
Impressive and gripping episode!
Reply
Flag
Awesome. I envy those of you who can express your opinions of the show in five words or less w/o rambling on.
Reply
Flag
I never did learn the art of succinctness.
Reply
Flag
"Never learned brevity" would have been a shorter way of saying that.
Reply
Flag

Like TV.com on Facebook