“Please, God, Mike… please tell me you weren’t just threatening Toby Ziegler.” I love the implication of that line. He’s almost begging him to refute that claim, because Sam and the rest of the staff LIKE Agent Kaspar. But if he were to threaten one of them like that, they would IMMEDIATELY and in lockstep see him as a mortal enemy. Especially Sam, who regards Ziegler as an older brother.
I imagine that somewhere between Mike picking up that phone and Sam's meeting with Nancy in the Situation Room, Nancy was paid a visit by a certain gentleman with an eyepatch.
He appears to be adding "class" and "dignity" to his role. His emotions are reserved and his facts are quickly expressed. He's easy to like and yet I almost don't like his character.
@@NiceTryLaoChe Joe McCarthy was right, but had no rights to the beyond top secret info that he was paraphrasing. That this Soviet agent was convicted only of chickenfeed is far less important than not revealing to them that we broke their unbreakable code. That Harold Philby had passed on to his Soviet masters that we had broken it, probably earlier, is besides the point.
@@jacobtebbe4435 Honestly, even if it'd been right, it's not much of an argument. "We sent 50 people to prison and it later turned out that only 20 of them were actually innocent. That's over half!"
For me, a latter part of this storyline makes no sense whatsoever. Let me explain: (Warning: Spoilers ahead) (Warning: Spoilers ahead) (Warning: Spoilers ahead) In the beginning of the episode, one of the descendents of the accused contacts Sam Seaborn, and begs him for that man begs to include him in the list of to-be-pardoned, by President Bartlet. Sam is convinced of the man'sinnocence and starts the political process. Then the FBI notices, and the conversation above takes place. Basically, the position of the FBI is that the man WAS guilty of espionage and belonging to a dangerous spy ring, and that the Departmen of Justice, at the time, could only get a conviction for perjury. The FBI, however, is pissed for the political process that Sam has started, as briging it up will just be a huge stain on the FBI's reputation (that is, the FBI had helped with what seemed like a clearly political prosecution of someone incovenient). Ok, Fine. I have no problems so far. What really bugs me is what comes later: in the middle of the episode, Sam is called to the situation room (where he should never be allowed in, for lack of clearance and because it has nothing to do with his duties - remember that Sam is just the deputy chief of communications). Then Nancy McNally, the National Security Advisor herself, no Less (!!!), gets in, and provides Sam with a big, fat dossier, full of top-secret intelligence collected on this man, presumably by the CIA or some other US military intteligence agency. At this point, Sam HIMSELF points out that he is not cleared to know the existence of this file, much less read it, shwwing how much he is out of his depth! Without missing a beat, Nancy acknowledges this, clearly stating that she, herself, would be in deep legal trouble if it was ever found out that she handed Sam the file! So the two of them we are now in a completely illegal situation, that they will have to deny ever took place, all just to stop a simple political step to take place. However, dispite this assertion, Nancy immediately invites Sam to read it, though she saves his time (and our time as viewers) by commenting that the man WAS a spy, but that the method for the CIA to find that out could not be made public. Not because these methods had be illeagal or unethical, but because the CIA, to get the information, had broken the codes used by the spy ring. and THAT is what the FBI and the CIA desperately want to keep secret. Cut to a few hours later, and Sam is in his office, still in shock with what he has learned. When Donna passes by, sees him, and stops to ask if he's all right... he immediately starts rambling about truth, trust, betrayal, and other sthings, all but revealing that he know the man is a spay, and how he should never be pardoned. Eventually he catches himself, and when he gets to talk to the person who had contacted him in the beggining, he just gives her some harmless promess to see that the pardoning process can only start after a few months from then. That satisfies the requestress, and the storyline concludes. Now, my big problem with this storyline is the extra effort that both the FBI and the CIA go to have Sam be briefed on the intelligence gatherered, as a condition for him to drop the pardoning process. It would have been much simpler, and much less risky, from the point of view of inteligence gathering, to let the pardon process go ahead. That is: - First, because this is mainly a political/legal process, not legally related to spying. Therefore, no inteligence agency would need to provide information on the spoying details and echniques. - Second, by inlcuding Sam in the list of people that know about the FBI/ CIA / Whoever breaking the spy ring's codes, they create an extra, unessessary, risk of this information be exposed ( not to mention Donna, who may or may not have figured out the truth from Sam's ramblings in her presence) . - third because if the pardon process DID go ahead (as Sam innitially wanted) and even succeeds, the worst that would happen is tha the FBI gets some political bad press for a few days, and probably it would all be forgotten soon. Whereas, if someone savvy enough , and who worked for a enemy inteligence agency, would notice that Sam Seaborn, Ethical Defender of Justice and Law, suddenly dropped the pardon process after a visit to the FBI headquarters, they could figure out that Sam HAD to be REALLY conviced, by some strong evidence, of the man's guilt. That could imply the FBI / CIA/ Whoever to have broken the spy ring's codes... and the secret is out! (Note: I assume that Sam's visit to the situation room would be too secret to be known- But if the visit WAS known, then the situation would be even easier to figure out by an enemy spy) - Fourth : It could even make sense, from a espionage point of view, to have the enemy's agency watch the pardoning process, and comment to themselves: "if they have pardoned this man, they must be really in ignorance of the spying work that h has done for us! Our spying channels are secure". So, again, I really think the storyline was poorly handled. Due to the reasons presented above, I would think more logical (in espionage terms, especially) for the FBI and CIA not to meddle with Sam's actions. I am assuming that the writters wanted to make a point on presenting a case that mixted political process, FBI's questionable decisions and actions in their work on counter-espionage, effects on normal people, especially the families of convicted persons. I just wished they had done it a little better. I appologise for the long post, which now I think seems more than a rambling. If anyone what to omment, or present counter arguments, I will do my best to respond,
Hmm. Given that Aaron Sorkin was writing episodes at breakneck speed and got things wrongish more than once (Beowulf was written in OLD English, not Middle English, which Jed Bartlett absolutely should have known), the objections you raise, while valid, don't have a lot to do with writing for television. The whole episode is about Sam's motivation. Do it all by the book as per your issues, and we got nuffin.
One for the flouros; one for the desk lamp; one to close the curtains; one to arm the floor trapdoor; one to activate the omni-magneto shield; one for lift-off. Don't you know *anything* about the FBI?
Yeah, I'm really *not* a fan of him using Joe McCarthy to justify the prosecution. No matter how bad Gault may have been, McCarthy was worse. He was the Donald Trump of his day, only with *actual* political chops. Thank goodness decency actually meant something to some people back then.
Indeed, our world is now filled with an entire universe of conspiracy theory wingnuts who have crawled out of the dark, fetid shadows they normally occupy to take over an entire political party. So yeah, the relative sanity, moral clarity, and idealism of the 90s West Wing is something a whole lot of us want desperately to get back to.
Hardly the case, given that Sam’s righteous indignation is eventually proven wrong, and that Clark Gregg’s character is 100% in the right. The brilliance of this episode - and in particular this scene - is that Sorkin plays on his own idealistic tropes as a writer to bait the hook for you to believe in Sam’s righteous crusade. Then, later in the episode, he punches you in the face.
@@chasekiddy8864 No, I saw the same episodes you did and that's not how it played out. What Sorkin did was deftly show there is indeed a cost to pursuing idealistic tropes, as you put it, because someone or something on the other side is always affected. And that's sometimes tough to reconcile, but it doesn't change the clarity in doing what is right vs what is convenient. Anyone needing a lesson about that only need take a good look at the last 4 years.
@@djm4457 Sorry - I was replying to the original comment, not yours. OP says “typical 90s idealism” and I presume He was referring to Sam’s attitude here. I disagreed with that idea for the reasons stated.
“Please, God, Mike… please tell me you weren’t just threatening Toby Ziegler.”
I love the implication of that line. He’s almost begging him to refute that claim, because Sam and the rest of the staff LIKE Agent Kaspar. But if he were to threaten one of them like that, they would IMMEDIATELY and in lockstep see him as a mortal enemy. Especially Sam, who regards Ziegler as an older brother.
I imagine that somewhere between Mike picking up that phone and Sam's meeting with Nancy in the Situation Room, Nancy was paid a visit by a certain gentleman with an eyepatch.
He's basically Coulson before joining SHIELD. Or, maybe he was working for SHIELD and here.
Hail Hydra!
He appears to be adding "class" and "dignity" to his role. His emotions are reserved and his facts are quickly expressed. He's easy to like and yet I almost don't like his character.
It is truly wild that he literally quotes Joe Fucking McCarthy as a SUPPORT for his argument.
True, though his “made more than we missed” comment is objectively wrong
@@NiceTryLaoChe Joe McCarthy was right, but had no rights to the beyond top secret info that he was paraphrasing. That this Soviet agent was convicted only of chickenfeed is far less important than not revealing to them that we broke their unbreakable code. That Harold Philby had passed on to his Soviet masters that we had broken it, probably earlier, is besides the point.
@@jacobtebbe4435 Honestly, even if it'd been right, it's not much of an argument.
"We sent 50 people to prison and it later turned out that only 20 of them were actually innocent. That's over half!"
For me, a latter part of this storyline makes no sense whatsoever. Let me explain:
(Warning: Spoilers ahead)
(Warning: Spoilers ahead)
(Warning: Spoilers ahead)
In the beginning of the episode, one of the descendents of the accused contacts Sam Seaborn, and begs him for that man begs to include him in the list of to-be-pardoned, by President Bartlet. Sam is convinced of the man'sinnocence and starts the political process. Then the FBI notices, and the conversation above takes place. Basically, the position of the FBI is that the man WAS guilty of espionage and belonging to a dangerous spy ring, and that the Departmen of Justice, at the time, could only get a conviction for perjury. The FBI, however, is pissed for the political process that Sam has started, as briging it up will just be a huge stain on the FBI's reputation (that is, the FBI had helped with what seemed like a clearly political prosecution of someone incovenient).
Ok, Fine. I have no problems so far.
What really bugs me is what comes later: in the middle of the episode, Sam is called to the situation room (where he should never be allowed in, for lack of clearance and because it has nothing to do with his duties - remember that Sam is just the deputy chief of communications). Then Nancy McNally, the National Security Advisor herself, no Less (!!!), gets in, and provides Sam with a big, fat dossier, full of top-secret intelligence collected on this man, presumably by the CIA or some other US military intteligence agency. At this point, Sam HIMSELF points out that he is not cleared to know the existence of this file, much less read it, shwwing how much he is out of his depth! Without missing a beat, Nancy acknowledges this, clearly stating that she, herself, would be in deep legal trouble if it was ever found out that she handed Sam the file! So the two of them we are now in a completely illegal situation, that they will have to deny ever took place, all just to stop a simple political step to take place.
However, dispite this assertion, Nancy immediately invites Sam to read it, though she saves his time (and our time as viewers) by commenting that the man WAS a spy, but that the method for the CIA to find that out could not be made public. Not because these methods had be illeagal or unethical, but because the CIA, to get the information, had broken the codes used by the spy ring. and THAT is what the FBI and the CIA desperately want to keep secret.
Cut to a few hours later, and Sam is in his office, still in shock with what he has learned. When Donna passes by, sees him, and stops to ask if he's all right... he immediately starts rambling about truth, trust, betrayal, and other sthings, all but revealing that he know the man is a spay, and how he should never be pardoned. Eventually he catches himself, and when he gets to talk to the person who had contacted him in the beggining, he just gives her some harmless promess to see that the pardoning process can only start after a few months from then. That satisfies the requestress, and the storyline concludes.
Now, my big problem with this storyline is the extra effort that both the FBI and the CIA go to have Sam be briefed on the intelligence gatherered, as a condition for him to drop the pardoning process. It would have been much simpler, and much less risky, from the point of view of inteligence gathering, to let the pardon process go ahead. That is:
- First, because this is mainly a political/legal process, not legally related to spying. Therefore, no inteligence agency would need to provide information on the spoying details and echniques.
- Second, by inlcuding Sam in the list of people that know about the FBI/ CIA / Whoever breaking the spy ring's codes, they create an extra, unessessary, risk of this information be exposed ( not to mention Donna, who may or may not have figured out the truth from Sam's ramblings in her presence) .
- third because if the pardon process DID go ahead (as Sam innitially wanted) and even succeeds, the worst that would happen is tha the FBI gets some political bad press for a few days, and probably it would all be forgotten soon. Whereas, if someone savvy enough , and who worked for a enemy inteligence agency, would notice that Sam Seaborn, Ethical Defender of Justice and Law, suddenly dropped the pardon process after a visit to the FBI headquarters, they could figure out that Sam HAD to be REALLY conviced, by some strong evidence, of the man's guilt. That could imply the FBI / CIA/ Whoever to have broken the spy ring's codes... and the secret is out! (Note: I assume that Sam's visit to the situation room would be too secret to be known- But if the visit WAS known, then the situation would be even easier to figure out by an enemy spy)
- Fourth : It could even make sense, from a espionage point of view, to have the enemy's agency watch the pardoning process, and comment to themselves: "if they have pardoned this man, they must be really in ignorance of the spying work that h has done for us! Our spying channels are secure".
So, again, I really think the storyline was poorly handled. Due to the reasons presented above, I would think more logical (in espionage terms, especially) for the FBI and CIA not to meddle with Sam's actions. I am assuming that the writters wanted to make a point on presenting a case that mixted political process, FBI's questionable decisions and actions in their work on counter-espionage, effects on normal people, especially the families of convicted persons. I just wished they had done it a little better.
I appologise for the long post, which now I think seems more than a rambling. If anyone what to omment, or present counter arguments, I will do my best to respond,
Requestress? Really?
Hmm. Given that Aaron Sorkin was writing episodes at breakneck speed and got things wrongish more than once (Beowulf was written in OLD English, not Middle English, which Jed Bartlett absolutely should have known), the objections you raise, while valid, don't have a lot to do with writing for television.
The whole episode is about Sam's motivation. Do it all by the book as per your issues, and we got nuffin.
Why does such a small office require so many light switches. 6 seems a bit extreme
One for the flouros; one for the desk lamp; one to close the curtains; one to arm the floor trapdoor; one to activate the omni-magneto shield; one for lift-off.
Don't you know *anything* about the FBI?
Almost Marvel / TWW crossover with all those gadgets 😂
Yeah, I'm really *not* a fan of him using Joe McCarthy to justify the prosecution. No matter how bad Gault may have been, McCarthy was worse. He was the Donald Trump of his day, only with *actual* political chops. Thank goodness decency actually meant something to some people back then.
lol you funny
Typical 1990's idealistic television.
The real world was much different back then as it is now.
Well that argument would make sense except that only the first season was in the 90's. All the others were 2000 and beyond.
Indeed, our world is now filled with an entire universe of conspiracy theory wingnuts who have crawled out of the dark, fetid shadows they normally occupy to take over an entire political party. So yeah, the relative sanity, moral clarity, and idealism of the 90s West Wing is something a whole lot of us want desperately to get back to.
Hardly the case, given that Sam’s righteous indignation is eventually proven wrong, and that Clark Gregg’s character is 100% in the right. The brilliance of this episode - and in particular this scene - is that Sorkin plays on his own idealistic tropes as a writer to bait the hook for you to believe in Sam’s righteous crusade. Then, later in the episode, he punches you in the face.
@@chasekiddy8864 No, I saw the same episodes you did and that's not how it played out. What Sorkin did was deftly show there is indeed a cost to pursuing idealistic tropes, as you put it, because someone or something on the other side is always affected. And that's sometimes tough to reconcile, but it doesn't change the clarity in doing what is right vs what is convenient. Anyone needing a lesson about that only need take a good look at the last 4 years.
@@djm4457 Sorry - I was replying to the original comment, not yours. OP says “typical 90s idealism” and I presume He was referring to Sam’s attitude here. I disagreed with that idea for the reasons stated.