Harvey Destroys Trevor So Effortlessly | Suits 

So good series. No wonder the crown prince of the strongest monarch country in Europe we'd the co lead actress. Lol!

more like big bro

@@TheTitanKronosnah def daddy cuz Donna is the mommy

Trevor is what I imagine if shit was a human being. He had a massive inferiority complex. Just remember that Mike was kicked out of college because of Trevor who screwed Mike over every time he could.

@@JSmellerM Mike was an adult, he could have said 'no'

@@thunderfist232that's such a cop out

Trevor was a shit person the entire show

Yea After he screw his girlfriend in the shower

Agree 👍🏻.

we all know trevor was never his friend

@@niceshirt8559 The way I see it he is a good friend, he's been supportive of mike all the way through until he found out he got together with Jenny

ahahahah

Basically what happened😹

It’s a skill issue

But his claims still true tho

accurate tldr

if your friends are like trevor, you don´t have friends

​@alexanderzack3720 nope, you have liabilities. 😂😂😂

He was indeed scum

He did well in his acting job that nobody likes his character.

He maybe is a human trashcan but he´s not lying about Mike. Just telling the truth nobody want to hear.

no, no, trashcan has a noble purpose. he's plainly trash. great actor tho.

@@zohaibamir858he was cool in flashbacks tho

I mostly agree he should have dumped Trevor as a friend, but he became a "lawyer" while escaping federal agents while trafficking drugs for Trevor.

@@EIB0210 well he probably would have been a legit lawyer if he didn't talk him into selling tests and ended up selling to the deans daughter.... Trevor is the worst type

Grammie would say, "That kid is an anchor' 😅

​@@nhyiraba9152she may have LITERALLY said that 😂

Mike should've listened to Harvey cuz he told him the same thing OFTEN 💯

Also Mike's grandmother told him Trevor was bad news. Mike was too loyal.

Pretty much everyone in Mikes life told him to cut ties with Trevor.

and mike's grandma!

Welcome to suits. Harvey tells mike to do/not do something, mike ignores it, it backfires, Harvey get's told that he never helps Mike... Even though Harvey faught tooth and nail for Mike

​@Ghosts1129 part of the reason their relationship is father-son. No brother is going to put up with that much shite from Mike no matter how close they are. Mike can make Harvey bend over backwards for him and he's always in his corner. That's parental vibes.

He didn't forget. Part of the beauty of that story (in this context) is that he can tell the story without making himself look bad. Anita Gibbs has no reason to ask a follow up to make the witness look bad. Meanwhile, Harvey can't ask Trevor to elaborate on the details without tacitly admitting it really happened. The entire goal of Harvey's questioning is to call his entire credibility into question, not just his credibility by leaving out part of a story.

Haha yes

....well, there was no "permission to walk about the well" or "permission to approach the examined as hostile" or a judge jumping in due to the objection... makes good for presentation when the actors get to do whatever they want, but there's a lot that would have disrupted the flow of his cross examination if this were executed legit.

@@ryderkain2790 if he was an actual lawyer, he wouldn't have done the "TV Meander" so no worries there, I don't think this would need hostile witness, and he would just have jumped straight to the point on the badgering thing

I mean, he had made a deal not to be arrested, so I think it's fair, he admitted to feeling jealous at the end tho.

I don't think Harvey ever turns it OFF, TBH 😂

The objection was valid. “I just caught you in a lie” can be viewed as somewhat hostile. It wasn’t objected to either, but also counsel was testifying.

​@@Paul-lr2qx the badgering was not a valid claim, she objected and said badgering when he was saying that Jenny Griffith left him for Mike Ross

​@@Paul-lr2qx that's not badgering. you can object to it as, maybe "testifying", not really sure.

im 90% sure the correct objection would be “leading the witness” but idk, im not a lawyer After being told by 5 different people, it is now my professional opinion that you cannot lead the witness in cross examination, fuck me bro, yall keep responding the same shit

​@@flameburn4192 I don't think so. From wgat I gather, leading the witness would be asking a question so specific and detailed that the only possible answer is contained in it. Leading should be objected to as it disrupts the natural process lf the testimony and replaces it by the lawyer's narrative. Here, harvey led foundations and then asked a broad question. You could probably object for hostility or for testifying in the place of his witness, but not for leading

staying quiet like she was supposed to in those situations.

When Anita Gibbs objected, she motioned her to stop and let it continue

She was using the basis for the objection so the judge stayed quiet. This is not law SCHOOL, this is a REAL courtroom & the judge is not there to TEACH.

Dog it’s a cut clip. Shows are not made like that. Except for shit on Adult Swim

She was sympathetic towards Mike as she said in a later episode after he got out

Show was great...bring it back

Season 6, right?

​@@kelvinetrebilarbi736 No this was 5 th season and in the last episode Mike goes to prison

And the last one to me, I can’t pass over the fact they doubt they could win this case. Then everything started falling apart.

​@@TraveltoBrazilMike was the one that doubted it the most ... and made the deal. and while I understood his why (if you watched the episode, you know) ... it still was the wrong call.

I don't think they forgot, I see it as Trevor not telling the full story to not look bad and Harvey's entire goal is to discredit Trevor. If Harvey pointed out Trevor convinced Mike to cheat on tests for people that would point out it actually happened and hurt discrediting the entire statement.

FR Trevor turned his life around and decided to turn on mike. One of the most pissed I’ve been at a fictional character

Not a friend

Can harvey handle the big fudge?

Yeah ikr big fudge would stomp him

Marshall couldn’t even argue with his wife let alone harvey

Judge fudge!!!!!

Or was it Fudge Supreme

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I think harvey would win tbh

@@FaZePlaysGames def agree harvey would win. Saul is ruthless for sure, but he's also willing to use evidence that would convict himself as evidence to force extortion. . . harvey would immediately flip that into it's actual purpose which is to be used against saul. At the very least harvey could nullify a lot of saul's plans/intentions. imo at least

Harvey would win. Saul relies on the arrogance and ignorance of his contemporaries. Harvey can play both, he can win through sheer competence and if you take the fight into the mud, he can get just as dirty as Saul. Also keep in mind while Saul is great, he is a big fish in a small pond. Abq NM. Harvey is one of the most competent and effective corporate lawyers in Manhattan. A giant fish, in a huge ocean.

Spector would eat him alive. Saul would know this and avoid a confrontation with him if at all possible.

Or matt murdock vs Harvey Specter

If he did then it would have pretty much confirmed Trevor's jealousy of Mike, yet again, because Jessica will probably either perjure herself just to save her skin and the firm's reputation.

Show started going downhill for me at season 5 but the last few episodes for it were probably my favorite. Trevor got off easy imo, bitch ass snake

In her first objection, she doesn't state the basis for the objection and no objectionable testimony is obvious, except, perhaps, that Harvey does not ask a question, but makes a statement, which might could be considered testimony, but it could be easily cured. "I kust caught you in a lie, didn't i?" Proper way is, "Objection, your honor. Hearsay." The second objection is "badgering." Used all the time in television and movies, but I have never heard any attorney phrase an objection in this manner. If an attorney keeps asking the same question multiple times, objection is "asked and answered." Couple of other things: --You can see a couple of times that a frame has been removed in editing. The timing indicates it might have been an objection --Some have commented on the absence of the judge. She is there; she is the brunette in a couple of brief clips. You can see her black robe. She should be ruling on both objections. --Spector does what is basically a long proffer of a future female witness. It is likely the judge would allow that over the objection of opposing counsel. --Though he lapses in a couple of spots, Harvey properly uses leading questions. No open-ended questions should be used in cross examination. I could add a couple of other observations, but it is already too lengthy.

Trevor did not have everything😂

@@cbstein7530 I KNOW 😀 It was just an observation🙂

@@annahjaya700 😂😂😂

😂😂😂

Yes it was - prosecute him for ruining Parker's friendship with Harry's dad 🤣👍😎

She was his witness what kind of lawyer would he be if he had no idea what she was gonna say and listed her??

You are ignoring the fact that he ended with directly asking if it was true or not. Your big brain thoughts were not ao big brained.

@@JamesMichaelDoyle your point isnt valid. By your logic, it would be acceptable for any attorney to hijack the mic with monologue that makes countless accusatory statements as long as they end it with "isnt that true"?

There’s dozens of exceptions to hearsay, one of them including something to establish mindset, motive, or intent. I know it’s a common thing to think hearsay and circumstantial evidence and things like that are not allowed in court but they are actually very common. I’m not a lawyer so idk if what happened in the video is admissible, I’m just sharing what I know.

​@@VAOdin Harvey's basically saying this is what my witness is going to testify. It's not hearsay because it's going to be a direct testimony and it's not speculation because it's what the witness is going to testify. As long as Harvey doesn't imply anything that isn't in the testimony, what he's doing is 100% allowed. He's pulling the equivalent of I'm not saying but my witness will