Do you really think Chuck and Howard are going to tell clients they are trying to win back, "Oh, by the way, Chuck here has a condition where he can't function around electricity unless he's wearing his space blanket."

This whole conversation has been an attempt by people to explain away and excuse Jimmy's crimes while crucifying Chuck.

Okay. Then let me clear that up, again: I'm not saying that.

That is one of the only things Chuck did I simply see no excuse for (as in, I can't even see a justification for it if Chuck's motivations WERE good all along with all of the other stuff).

Consider this, too. Chuck predicts that Jimmy is going to be a petty criminal lawyer.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get me to admit here.

Sure, but it's definitely fair to say that talking about who "Started" what is probably not something you can resolve with a simple one-off incident.

Yeah, their relationship is a Shakespearean mess.

So Chuck is a prick.

Bingo.

Yes.

How do you know they didn't know? And really, after Chuck lays out a case like he did, why would they care?

They're bad. Chuck is a prick.

I never said that so long as no one was hurt we should never prosecute someone for breaking the, but again my point is what benefit does prosecuting every law breaker do?

Look, you're trying to create a philosophical web here that I just don't agree with: "There's nothing wrong with breaking the law as along as nobody is hurt". Doing this allows for all sorts of broken laws - breaking and entering, fraud, the odd scam against a rich guy here or there - so long as there are no victims.

Right, so we should all suffer no consequences for breaking and entering so long as everything is put back nicely before we leave.

What's that have to do with Jimmy knowingly and blatantly committing fraud? That's not strong-arming, it would have been just as illegal against a small business, except that they might not have been able to get him for it.

Nice change the point, except that isn't the point.

"And thus concludes my argument on why fraud should be allowed when it's committed against rich people."

If by "Suffer" you mean "Stop using the illegal footage", we should all want that, yes.