30 replies to this topic

[CozyKat]

This is the place for "triangle talk" and comparing the characters of Alicia's top two romancers.

If you haven't worked your way through the "Old TGW" thread, a compelling discussion of this topic begins around the 100-page mark, after the Season 1 episode "Heart." Many things about Peter, Will and the show have shifted a bit since then, but I recommend checking it out.

[passby123]

All humans are flawed, for me it's not really about who is the better man, it's about which man treats Alicia better.
It's hard to compare them because we know that Peter betrayed his marriage vows to Alicia in more than one way and we know that he also values his political career over his family life. We can say that Will is a workaholic, has had his share of women and been involved in questionable ethical behavior. But we don't know how Will is when he is in a relationship, we don't know what type of husband and partner he would be to Alicia because he hasn't been there. It's hard to judge a person on past actions, especially if those actions transpired when he was young and when he was single. For me the contrast really comes from Alicia and the role she seems to play in both of their lives. With Peter she is a part & a symbol of his career vs when she is with Will and then she becomes a lawyer and is treated as an equal. I think that Will sees Alicia in a way that Peter doesn't, his mind isn't bogged down by those domestic thoughts that trap married couples. Will is just seeing Alicia as he did in college, for who she is and not for all that other stuff, he knows her, he connects with her and they get eachother in a genuine way.

[Scorpiosrule]

But we don't know how Will is when he is in a relationship, we don't know what type of husband and partner he would be to Alicia because he hasn't been there. It's hard to judge a person on past actions, especially if those actions transpired when he was young and when he was single.

Well, to play Devil's Advocate, Peter's One Night Stand with Kalinda was a past action--that is, it didn't take place during Alicia and Peter's reconciliation period. How is it that Peter's actions are so heinous as compared to Will's illegal and criminal actions in the past and present? I still haven't forgotten the shit he pulled during that case where his client was the rich father and his son and his pregnant girlfriend killed that pharmacist. Him giving that gun to that young black teen...not to mention his lies of omission.

My point is, all of Peter's actions were done in the past. He didn't cheat on Alicia again, and though he was a douche in S1, expecting her to forgive him already after 8 or 9 months, I didn't see any manipulation on his part when they were working on the marriage. I didn't see his words to Alicia as not wanting the same type of marriage as his parents as an ultimatum or manipulative.

Peter loves his family. I cheered when he told that reporter it was non of his goddamned business if Alicia had forgiven him. The old Peter probably would have said "of course she has. Next question?"

Short of writing in his own blood that he would never cheat on her again, what would be proof that Peter was trying? He even said he wouldn't run again if Alicia didn't want him to. But she didn't hesitate. She said okay, with the caveat that the kids not be involved or her.

And really Kalinda wasn't Alicia's best friend when she and Peter had their one night stand. Peter didn't see that friendship growing, but by the time he realized it, he didn't come forth--what would be the point? It came out anyway, and the fallout is what he was afraid of.

And it's not like Will is old. He's still fairly young. And he's still single. Even though Alicia and Peter aren't officially or legally separated, he's particating in adultery. Many a time, the other woman gets the ostracization, why shouldn't Will, as the other man? Good for the Goose, good for the Gander, I say.

I don't think Will and Peter are opposites of each other--they're both complicated, flawed men with gray shades. What I don't like seeing is Peter being turned into this uber villain, against Will's hero because he's angry, vengeful, bitter and wants to get payback--he sees Will as the reason for his marriage breaking up so easily. This is just my speculation.

But at the same time, Peter isn't spouting invectives about Alicia to the kids, and taking it on all himself. Gotta give him kudos for that.

In my opinion.

With Peter she is a part & a symbol of his career

Maybe pre-scandal. But we saw her become her own woman in S1 as she returned to the workforce and was an instant success at litigating and trying cases in court. I also saw Peter treating Alicia as an equal last season. Too bad for Noth's unavailability, that the show couldn't show us more scenes between them, to see how the reconciliation was going.

I think that Will sees Alicia in a way that Peter doesn't, his mind isn't bogged down by those domestic thoughts that trap married couples.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you clarify? From all I gather, Alicia took care of the kids and everything else that falls under domestic stuff, while Peter was busy with the SA's office, then later with the hookers. If Will wants more than just sex with Alicia, he'll also have to get "bogged down" with domestic thoughts, because she comes with two children.

Edited by Scorpiosrule, Oct 7, 2011 @ 11:16 AM.

[Nanrad]

Scorpio, I'm going to have to disagree.

First, you are comparing two different things. No one is trying to give Will a pass on his crimes. You are comparing a shady crime and infidelity in terms of their relationship with Alicia. As far as we know, that crime has nothing to do with Alicia. But, even if Kalinda and her weren't friends, that one night stand does effect Alicia.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find the whole argument "It happened in the past" to be insensitive. Yes, it happened in the past, but it still happened, right? Peter still cheated, right? Just because it is in the past doesn't change anything, it is what happens afterwards. My problem with Peter is the 18 times with the hooker (and maybe once and their own home), and then the one night stand with Alicia that he lied about. Now, that issue would have been of the past if he had confessed to it when Alicia originally asked. It remains present because he wasn't honest about all of his infidelities. Not only that, his past actions is what hurt his family in the present. It it what hurt Alicia and made her doubt him. I've never been cheated on, but I know people who have been--and from what it seems, it hurts A LOT. That's not something you get over over night. It sticks with you for a long time even when you want to forgive a person. You begin to have insecurities that were never there or that worsen because of this infidelity.

Peter went out and paid a hooker for sex--what wasn't he getting at home???

Even if Peter didn't see that friendship growing, he should have still told Alicia. That fact of the matter is that Peter broke his marriage vows with two different women--Kalinda didn't owe Alicia anything then, but Peter did. But, say if Peter knew that his liaison with Kalinda was going to come out anyway, that was even more reason for him to come forth about the whole thing. Why would he let someone else blindside her? That's not smart thinking on Peter's part.

As far as adultery goes, religiously, yes it is bad. But, I don't find the problem with the "affair" (on a technicality that they are still married as well, so affair it is) since Peter knows that Alicia wants a divorce and hasn't filed to keep his career intact for the moment. But, I wouldn't compare this to all the secrecy that Peter did. If Peter found out that Alicia was seeing someone, he can be upset even feel betrayed, but not in the same way as someone who believes their marriage is intact. Those are two different things that are being compared based on technicalities.

I love Peter's character as well as Will. I don't see him as an uber villain or a villain at all. But, I do find he can be unreasonable at times. How can he expect his relationship with Alicia to get better if he is attacking that place where she works because of his jealousy? Peter clearly isn't thinking straight if he believes Will broke up his marriage. Even if Will had influence over Alicia's decision to leave Peter (no, the lying did it), Peter's scandals was what broke up his marriage. His lying is what broke up his marriage. There is so much flack about Alicia leaving because of the "Leela" situation when she had every right to leave. Peter couldn't be honest about the most important things. Say if Peter thought Alicia was going to leave him if she found about Kalinda, he still should have told her so their relationship's foundation could have been rebuilt on honesty. No, he choose to build it on a lie and paid for the consequences.

I think what passby123 means is Will sees Alicia as a woman, a lawyer, as a person with passion and what not. Peter sees her only as a wife and mother--now he is starting to see her differently. Yes, Will will have to see her in some domestic responsibility, but his line of vision when it comes to Alicia is broader than domestic life. I think understands and respects that fact that Alicia invests much of her time into being a lawyer as she does mother. BUT, she does have her priorities in order. You can see that Peter only saw her as a caretaker for a long time by how enamored he was by Alicia's performance in the courtroom. To me, it said, "Where was this woman during our marriage?" Alicia has a lot of passion and fire when she is in court that she probably lacked before the affair.

[stealinghome]

and we know that he also values his political career over his family life.

I don't know that this is fair. Maybe S1 Peter. But in S2, if Alicia had said "don't run," I have no doubt that he would not have run.

How can he expect his relationship with Alicia to get better if he is attacking that place where she works because of his jealousy?

I don't think he does. Can you clarify what you mean, Nanrad? At this point it's clear to me that Peter has no illusions about reuniting with Alicia. Honestly, he'd probably be just as happy if she were to move to Siberia for a few months (well, except as far as the kids are involved, but you know what I mean). And Alicia has been as aggressive toward him as he has toward her (understandably so, but still).

As far as we know, that crime has nothing to do with Alicia.

Yes and no. Alicia was in the car and with Will when he tampered with evidence. That could have (and still could, who knows) get her in hot water.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find the whole argument "It happened in the past" to be insensitive. Yes, it happened in the past, but it still happened, right?

Sure, but I think--correct me if I'm wrong, Scorpiosrule--is that Peter wouldn't repeat his crimes. Going forward, he would probably be a good husband again.

Now, that doesn't mean that Alicia has to forgive him or be okay with what he's done in the past. Absolutely not. But projecting forward, in my opinion it's not totally fair to use Peter's past behavior as a barometer. And as far as his lying goes--does that mean that every time someone lies it remains a stain on their soul every minute of every day that they don't confess? Because all the characters have that problem if so.

Peter sees her only as a wife and mother--now he is starting to see her differently.

Yes, but again moving forward, I think he sees her pretty similar to how Will sees her. Certainly he did last year.

I'm still hoping they explore the Leela backstory, because I really want to know the context of the ONS.

The Will-Peter debate also keys into some interesting differences in American and, to my mind, European attitudes about politicians. It's the private v public debate. Can you be a terrible person in your private life and still be a good public figure? JFK and Bill Clinton would say yes. Will is shady in the public domain, Peter in the private. Which is worse? Which is more acceptable? Everyone's answer is different, but it's a fascinating question.

[angelita100]

Peter being turned into this uber villain, against Will's hero

Peter isn't a villain. He's just not a good husband. At this point she can't trust him and without trust you have nothing. I also am not ready to crown him the best SA in the world because I think he's a man who is used to getting his way and will abuse his office for anything that suits him. I don't trust him either so we'll see how this all plays out.

Will isn't a hero. But he has treated Alicia with respect. So that's why I root for one over the other. But as I've said many times - I would be just fine if Alicia and Will's relationship is explored and they decide that it just isn't going to work. But even if that happens I'm not interested in seeing her back with Peter. Hell I was pissed when she didn't leave him immediately. With regards to Will's shady dealings I'll wait to see the full story before I judge.

And Will may dance all over a few lines but I don't believe he is an amoral person. He's not abusing public trust because nobody elected him. And everyone on this show has done the very type of things that Will has done - and that includes Peter. Politics by its nature is a dirty business. Peter will use anyone he can like he used the African American ministers to his own end while it suited him.


I guess in the biblical sense Alicia is committing adultery with Will but since I'm not Christian I don't care because the marriage is in name only at this point.

Edited by angelita100, Oct 7, 2011 @ 11:10 PM.

[passby123]

It cannot really be Peter vs Will because while Will was an alternative option for Alicia he wasn't the reason Alicia's marriage failed.
Peter is a bad husband, he cheated and he lied to his wife even after she forgave him. When he was caught for the 2nd time lying he responded by dispersing blame, rather than owning wholly upto what he had done. Peter subjected Alicia to his lies being exposed by somebody else not once but twice. The bigger betrayal to Alicia is Peter's lies the 2nd time because his marriage was rocked, his wife gave him another shot but she also mandated that he reveal all his transgressions and be honest. It's Peter who was given an out at that time, it's he who could have owned up, could have told Alicia the truth and did not. A man that sleeps with a hooker more than a dozen times and then has sexual relations with co-workers isn't a man to be trusted. There is no way that Kalinda & the call girl Amber are the only trangressions Peter had, they are just the two he was caught having. As a wife how do you trust a husband who knows you are be-friending a woman with whom he had a one night stand with and not alert your wife, not question Kalinda's motivations. The line that was drawn when Alicia found out about Peter & Kalinda is the one in which points out to Alicia that Peter didn't just have sex with women he paid for it with, that he crossed another line & sleep with co-workers.
So now he isn't just a cheater, he is a serial cheater. It's the old saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and shame on me. It's more likely that Peter cheated throughout his marriage to Alicia and not just with the two she knows about, it's also likely that Peter will never tell Alicia the entire truth because he knew how bad it was and he knows she wouldn't get past how bad a husband he was. So even if Alicia forgave him for Kalinda, eventually another lie would be exposed and Alicia would be right in the place she has already been twice.

The contrast for Alicia with Will is that she didn't cross that line even if she wanted to, she somehow thru circumstance or effort withheld from giving into her desire. Alicia's desires weren't just based on physical desire either, they were rooted in love as well and still she did what was required of her to keep her family together, to somehow repair her marriage.

[Nanrad]

Stealinghome, what I mean is that whether or not they get back together down the line, Peter's relationship with Alicia will not get better by attacking her job. As mentioned, L&G have some "questionable clients", but as Diane also mentioned, many law firms do as well. Not only that, if Peter does have a legitimate reason to come after the firm, why was Diane okay with letting Peter look at the books. The only reason she didn't was because of her conversations with Alicia and Will (separately). So, if the partners aren't worried (that much because they were a little bit), what is Peter going after then? If it is Will, someone else said, whatever Will did was at another law firm in another state--Peter's jurisdiction doesn't reach beyond the state, so what else has Will done? So, why is Peter going after the firm?

But, the crime I was alluding to was before Alicia joined the firm--the one Peter "warned" her about.

See, I'm not talking about the act of sleeping with Kalinda, but the fact that Alicia asked him so they could repair their relationship and he lied. I'm not talking about Alicia asking him if he bought some band-aids and he didn't, but lied and said he did. That is not the same. The act of cheating can be in the past, but the feeling of betrayal will stay with you for a long time. Using the argument that he probably would be a good husband and not repeat his mistakes doesn't correspond with his current behavior. In a non-religious sense, the degree of the lie was off the charts. You can't repair a relationship on a faulty foundation.

Again, it is not about him cheating on her, but him lying about it. Alicia was willing to forgive him for the past and he still lied about it. That is the problem. But, the past can never be the past if we are being honest. The past has shaped why their relationship is the way it is. This is why she is developing a hardened shell, has a job, distrustful of people, has a closer relationship with Will, etc...All because he cheated. Perhaps, he could have became a better husband because of his past indiscretions and knows better now. And as someone else said, he not only cheated with a prostitute, but with a co-worker as well. We can't discard the cheating card because he wants to become a better person. Cheating can lead him to become a better or worse person. The cheating is why he wants to become a better person. So, we can't use this act only when it benefits our argument--it goes both ways.

Edited by Nanrad, Oct 8, 2011 @ 1:01 PM.

[stealinghome]

Stealinghome, what I mean is that whether or not they get back together down the line, Peter's relationship with Alicia will not get better by attacking her job.

Do we really think he cares whether or not it does? I'm just not quite sure why Peter would care about the status of his relationship with Alicia at this point (aside from how it affects the kids, but Peter and Alicia seem to have come to a tacit agreement that they are going to keep the kids away from their relationship as much as possible and are holding to it). It's clear they're not getting back together and that she doesn't really want to be (or doesn't really care whether they are) amicable or friendly, so...what more is there to say? Or, to put it another way: why should Peter care about whether investigating Will (and by proxy her firm) is going to land him on Alicia's shit list if they're not even on speaking terms?

This isn't to say that Peter doesn't have personal motivations, of course, because he does. But again, it's the question of, should he not do his job and give LG a free pass on everything just because Alicia's there?

The act of cheating can be in the past, but the feeling of betrayal will stay with you for a long time. Using the argument that he probably would be a good husband and not repeat his mistakes doesn't correspond with his current behavior.

Of course--which is why Alicia ultimately left him (and, if she didn't feel that she could ever fully trust him again, was totally right to do so). I think Scorpiosrule's point was simply that one can't say "oh, we can't judge how Will is as a romantic partner based on his past relationships but we can judge Peter" because the past is, as you say, always the present. (Especially as his ex is about to roll into town!)

[Nanrad]

Even if Alicia is behaving in a way that is amicable or friendly, eventually she will try to make peace with Peter. Her anger is way more understandable than Peter's (not to say he doesn't have a right, but that he is being extreme). Not only that, just because Alicia isn't being the best person with him at the moment doesn't mean he should act the same way. I think Peter should concentrate more on ways to make amends with Alicia (besides his efforts to fix their marriage) because he hurt her badly. But, what good is going to come out of attacking her firm without just cause? If there is a legitimate reason for him to attack L&G and Will, then he can do his job by all means. But, as I explained earlier, Peter's case for going after them is very thin unless there is something we don't know, which is a possibility. And as much as they are trying to keep the kids out of the serious issues, it is not going to happen for long if Peter keeps attacking Alicia's work place without cause (remember, I gave him the benefit of the doubt). It seems immature that if Peter can't be with Alicia then they can't have a good relationship outside of marriage. He should care and want the best for her.

All we know really know about Will's romantic past is that he was a playboy (I could be forgetting some things). Even then, it seems as if the women he was with was just like him. But, the difference between Will and Peter as of now (who knows what this coming episode brings) is that Will's past has no direct effect on Alicia, where as Peter's did. Not to give Will a pass and to place blame on Peter, but that is the truth of the matter. To dwell on Will's playboy persona more, he hasn't even been portrayed as some womanizer either--just a guy who likes to have fun. When it comes to dating, Tammy at least, he did try to make an effort and did care for her. Will or should the fans always "judge" Peter by his past, no. But, that is if he makes an effort to improve himself and showing that he has changed--doesn't have to be drastic.

[angelita100]

This isn't to say that Peter doesn't have personal motivations, of course, because he does. But again, it's the question of, should he not do his job and give LG a free pass on everything just because Alicia's there?

It's not his job if it's a personal motive. I don't believe he is out to do good but to get a little payback and damn the fallout on Alicia. And the fact that he doesn't care about how this affects her means he's the same old Peter.

[stealinghome]

I don't believe he is out to do good but to get a little payback and damn the fallout on Alicia.

We agree to disagree, because I think he is out both to do good and to get payback. They're not mutually exclusive.

And the fact that he doesn't care about how this affects her means he's the same old Peter.

I think it's premature to declare that he doesn't care how it affects Alicia (for better or worse). But even if it isn't--again, why should he care, in the sense that he's doing his job? He can't be SA always thinking about how it affects Alicia. Should he throw every court case against her because beating her might be bad for her career, might cause LG to let her go? Or, hypothetically speaking, say that Alicia and Peter were still married (in more than name) and Peter got a tip that Will's dirty and should be investigated. Should he not do it just because it might upset/be bad for Alicia?

[Nanrad]

We agree to disagree, because I think he is out both to do good and to get payback. They're not mutually exclusive.

But, you can't say, "I'm running a clean office" and get payback. Those two will cross one another because of the position he is in and his clean office will become dirty. His payback is personal not professional. And his payback is not clean. Peter can't do both and come out clean.

I think it's premature to declare that he doesn't care how it affects Alicia (for better or worse). But even if it isn't--again, why should he care, in the sense that he's doing his job? He can't be SA always thinking about how it affects Alicia. Should he throw every court case against her because beating her might be bad for her career, might cause LG to let her go? Or, hypothetically speaking, say that Alicia and Peter were still married (in more than name) and Peter got a tip that Will's dirty and should be investigated. Should he not do it just because it might upset/be bad for Alicia?

See, I think you are the only saying this. No one on here is saying Peter should take it easy on Alicia because it will make her look bad. I think it will make her look bad if he takes it easy on her. What I am saying is that if Peter is deciding to go after Will and his firm for personal reasons, he needs to leave it alone because that will make her look bad. But, if he has a legitimate reason to chase after the two, then go for it. If Peter got a real tip on Will's shadiness, I don't see why he shouldn't investigate it. But, as someone said, we are prosecuting Will for crimes we don't even know about.

I don't remember, but did we ever find out why Kozco gave Peter the necklace that he gave to Alicia??? What about him offering the guy at the SA's office job security if he kept his affair with Kalinda a secret? He didn't just lie to Alicia, he was actively going out his way to make sure it never came to light. Sounds more like a politician than husband to me. Oh, then he is keeping Cary close for "clean office" reasons??? Naw, I don't think so. Peter is not a villain, but all of his dirty behavior is not behind him00and that was before the secret came to light.

[stealinghome]

But, you can't say, "I'm running a clean office" and get payback. Those two will cross one another because of the position he is in and his clean office will become dirty. His payback is personal not professional. And his payback is not clean. Peter can't do both and come out clean.

See, I massively disagree with this. I absolutely think that you can do something by the book and feel extra vindicated when you come out on top against a rival. You've never, ever been in a situation where you know you're right, someone disagrees, you do things correctly by the book and you turn out to be right, and on top of the satisfaction of the job well done you feel the pleasure of having been proved correct while your opponent has been proven wrong? Perhaps I'm just a little (lot) overcompetitive, but I've absolutely been in that situation and felt that way. And I don't think that relishing the victory means that my desire to do the original task correctly is tainted. The vindication is more like a cherry on top.

Peter is not a villain, but all of his dirty behavior is not behind him--and that was before the secret came to light.

Oh, totally, and the gray is why I like him as a character, it makes him much more interesting..

But, as someone said, we are prosecuting Will for crimes we don't even know about.

Except we do know about them. Blake pretty heavily implied what Will did at his past firm. And even if one doesn't think that Will intentionally sent Blake after the therapist (which I clearly do), to take another example from last season, Will clearly tampered with evidence. How would we feel if someone found out and Peter prosecuted Will for it?

I guess I just don't get the "we don't know what Will's done" thing, because imo we do.

I don't remember, but did we ever find out why Kozco gave Peter the necklace that he gave to Alicia???

No, because the writers have apparently decided to forget that the most interesting parts of S1 ever happened. I miss that show.

Edited by stealinghome, Oct 9, 2011 @ 11:12 AM.

[angelita100]

Except we do know about them. Blake pretty heavily implied what Will did at his past firm.

Heavily implied Blake isn't knowing what happened or how it will play out.

[HelenBack]

I absolutely think that you can do something by the book and feel extra vindicated when you come out on top against a rival.

Of course you can. But that isn't what Peter's doing. He's going on a fishing expedition for personal reasons, just hoping to find something. It's a misuse of his office, an abuse of power, and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Not by the book at all.

We know about some of the things Will's done that are, also, very wrong. Peter doesn't.

This is just one of the reasons I find the two very much alike. I'm rooting for Alicia to enjoy her time with Will, but ultimately think back on the sleazy things he's done that she's witnessed, realize just how much like Peter he is, and dump him, too.

[Nanrad]

See, I massively disagree with this. I absolutely think that you can do something by the book and feel extra vindicated when you come out on top against a rival. You've never, ever been in a situation where you know you're right, someone disagrees, you do things correctly by the book and you turn out to be right, and on top of the satisfaction of the job well done you feel the pleasure of having been proved correct while your opponent has been proven wrong? Perhaps I'm just a little (lot) overcompetitive, but I've absolutely been in that situation and felt that way. And I don't think that relishing the victory means that my desire to do the original task correctly is tainted. The vindication is more like a cherry on top.

I agree with HelenBack, Peter is going on a fishing expedition. Peter can feel vindicated against Glen Childs, but Will??? The only reason Alicia disagreed with Peter about his Will's allegations, but Peter never elaborated. Just implication and expects Alicia to believe him. But, as I said earlier, he doesn't have Cary by his side for professional (or by the book) reasons.

Whenever I refer to Will's shady past, I'm referring to Peter's insinuation about Will's past. I'm not to referring to things we have seen because there is no way Peter knows about that. Also, as HB mentioned heavily implied isn't a outright explanation or even confirmation of whatever he did. So, if Peter doesn't know what we have see on the show, then what is going after him for??? He has that thing from the past that may or may not hold water, but what else?

[stealinghome]

He's going on a fishing expedition for personal reasons, just hoping to find something.... We know about some of the things Will's done that are, also, very wrong. Peter doesn't.

No--Peter knows something about Will. We don't know what exactly it is, but clearly he's heard something. Remember back to S1? When he was like "there are things about Will you don't know that you won't like"? If he's making that statement, Peter clearly knows something. Now, it's entirely possible--I'd say even probable--that Peter doesn't know the specific details. I suspect that's what he's trying to flush out now. But he's clearly looking for the specifics of the thing(s) he is already aware of. Hence it's not a fishing trip. In my opinion calling it a fishing trip implies that Peter has no idea whether or not Will's done something shady, he's just hoping to find something. If he already knows something, it isn't a fishing trip.

He has that thing from the past that may or may not hold water, but what else?

That's like saying "the bloody knife may or may not have been used for the murder, but since we don't know we can't investigate!" Obviously to a different degree, but still.

Off topic, but does anyone else think the promos for tonight's episode are terrible? Like Will's going to be tempted away from Alicia when he just got her!

[HelenBack]

If he already knows something, it isn't a fishing trip.

Even when he's auditing the entire firm instead of investigating Will? I can't agree. If Peter has a lead to something in the past, he should pursue specifically that.

[Nanrad]

Stealinghome, I agree, the preview is terrible. We're savvy to the tricks shows use to rope viewers in.

On topic, it is a fishing trip. We know fish is in the water, but we have to go and hope we catch something... ;-). You can't make an accusation about someone without the facts. Yes, he is trying to find the facts now, but Peter was acting as if he had evidence when he first told Alicia about Will's "past". He could have said this in a neutral way by saying I've heard or something of that nature. No, he says it in a tone that implies that Will has a deep, dark secret. So, if you are going to make implications with your tone, which says this is more than talk or rumor, you better have facts to back it up and not just what you heard. Peter knows from personal experience where that can lead even though his case is more extreme.

Basically, it's like this:

You hear a rumor. Based upon what you know about a person you either believe or discard it. Peter believes it.

What next:

Do you tell someone else about it or try to figure out if it is really true? Peter blabs. Person doesn't believes it. He leaves it alone, until it becomes personal.

So, then what:

Now, you find evidence. What better way to have them eat their dirt???

I get the whole "mind screw" thing with Peter letting Will know that he is after him. I just don't get what took him so long. The better question is not what Will did, but how long has Peter known about Will's past? Seriously. Did he find out before the scandal broke, while he was in prison, while he was out, but not in office, or was it way before that? Has Peter known for years, but decided not to pursue Will because he was once friends with Alicia. Or did Peter think he was a big enough fish to fry? If Peter has known about this "past" for years, then it is time to definitely start questioning him. But, if he is going a fishing expedition, he could also come out with nothing or something he can't prosecute. If he found out during a time where he couldn't do anything, I could understand why he decided to pursue it. But, before this season, even with the mention of the shady past, there wasn't any indication that Peter wanted to investigate Will.

[Peekay]

I don't buy that Peter knows anything specific about Will's supposed dirty past event, because pretty much a day after Peter implied something like that to Alicia back in season one, Will paid a visit to their place and made nice to Peter (I think it was Heart episode?), and then Peter did a 180% and said to Alicia, "Hey, he's nice! I don't remember him being nice!" That makes me think Peter was jealous/worried over what Jackie has said (that Alicia was spending a lot of hours at work and possibly with Will) then wanted to warn Alicia away from Will. That makes me think he's got nothing specific on Will, just suspicions.

I'm sure Will has had less than clean dealings, possibly even when he was going against Peter as DA before, but if Peter knew anything specific, he would've used it by now. And I don't believe Will or Diane is any "dirtier" than any other leading attorney in Chicago. As a DA, Peter would've come across pretty much every possible dirt and dirty behaviour of lawyers working for and against him. So this audit thing is him being petty against L&G (and especially Will) because of Alicia.

Honestly, the audacity of that man. For someone who walked on such extremely fine lines on marital conducts as well as professional conducts (and crossed those very lines quite blatantly, too), he's just...petty. I think if he loves children and loved Alicia at all, he would leave them and L&G in peace, but obviously that's not going to happen.

[Scorpiosrule]

I don't buy that Peter knows anything specific about Will's supposed dirty past event, because pretty much a day after Peter implied something like that to Alicia back in season one, Will paid a visit to their place and made nice to Peter (I think it was Heart episode?), and then Peter did a 180% and said to Alicia, "Hey, he's nice! I don't remember him being nice!"

That doesn't prove or mean that Peter doesn't know anything. It just showed that to Peter, Will turned out to be a nice guy, that's all.

the audacity of that man. For someone who walked on such extremely fine lines on marital conducts as well as professional conducts (and crossed those very lines quite blatantly, too), he's just...petty. I think if he loves children and loved Alicia at all, he would leave them and L&G in peace,

Why? Because he cheated, was a lousy husband, but by all accounts, from Alicia herself, a very good SA, Peter can't be petty? He can't go after Will if he thinks Will/his firm has done something illegal? Then line up all the adulterers and sonsofbitches cheating husbands--beware! If you've cheated, then you can no longer do anything that might make your ex...soon to be ex or her boss/boyfriend/lover...uncomfortable, or under the eye of an investigation.

Yes, Peter fucked up. Was a lousy, cheating bastard of a husband. But, as in S1 and early S2....he had shades of Gray, that didn't make him all bad, not all good. And to use a real life example--both JFK and Clinton were serial cheaters--but they still did good.

I see Peter the same way. I never said he was a good husband; and I've already stated that any chance of a reconciliation is just not possible.

That doesn't mean that Peter isn't a good SA. In my opinion.

[Nanrad]

Why? Because he cheated, was a lousy husband, but by all accounts, from Alicia herself, a very good SA, Peter can't be petty? He can't go after Will if he thinks Will/his firm has done something illegal? Then line up all the adulterers and sonsofbitches cheating husbands--beware! If you've cheated, then you can no longer do anything that might make your ex...soon to be ex or her boss/boyfriend/lover...uncomfortable, or under the eye of an investigation.

Oh, come on! Peter is being beyond petty. If Will and Alicia never hooked up, would there have been an investigation in the first place? If so, would Peter be using the same tactics as he is now? Not only that, why is he keeping Cary close? Based on the implication of last season, it wasn't because he was damn good at his job (not saying he is a bad lawyer). Peter kept Cary close because Cary could offer information on Alicia and L&G. Also, Cary was also under the impression that Alicia got the junior associate job because something was going on with Will. Being petty was keeping Cary. Launching an investigation because of your jealousy is audacious. As mentioned earlier, all Peter has is suspicion and he can investigate all he wants to see if it is correct or not. But, sending a "message" to Will to imply that he "knows". Knows what? Peter is pretending to know information that he doesn't to validate his search. I would care about the investigation if it was discreet, but it isn't.

Just because Peter is jealous, it doesn't give him any right to abuse his office. And he is. Peter agreed to let someone have job protection for not letting the secret about Kalinda get out. He is using an employee for information about a firm for personal gain (revenge). He is using this said revenge to attack a man who is sleeping with his wife who he is separated from (he doesn't know for sure if they are having an affair or not--unless he is spying). Just because there are rumors floating around about someone, doesn't make it true. What we know as viewers and what Peter knows as a SA are two different things. Peter is looking for incriminating evidence to make Will look bad rather than actually knowing it is there and trying to prove Will is guilty and locking him away.

Peter was a good SA and still could be, but not if he continues to use his office as a way to "teach" Alicia lessons and get back at people he doesn't like.

[angelita100]

yeah it's hard for me to believe Peter is that nobel as well. And yes he'll supposedly make a good SA but I don't think he's been some angel in his job. He's in politics. It's a dirty business and Peter has and will play the game as well anyone else. We've seen him use and walk the gray area to get elected so I am not willing to give some hard dividing line between good peter (work) bad Peter (marriage).

Edited by angelita100, Oct 11, 2011 @ 7:53 AM.

[Scorpiosrule]

Peter was a good SA and still could be, but not if he continues to use his office as a way to "teach" Alicia lessons and get back at people he doesn't like.

Can you please provide an example where Peter has done something to "teach" Alicia a lesson as you've stated? He hasn't done anything yet. In fact, he actually helped Alicia last season with the bloody glove, which saved L&G's client.

yeah it's hard for me to believe Peter is that nobel as well.

And I never said he was noble. I've said he's had layers of gray, and that's what I love about him--he isn't all bad and he isn't all good.

And if there is something against Will or against L&G, that is legitimate and Peter can go after them, I don't see why he shouldn't and get his pound of flesh along with it.

Like stealinghome mentioned, either in this thread or the episode one, they're not mutually exclusive.

[Peekay]

That doesn't prove or mean that Peter doesn't know anything. It just showed that to Peter, Will turned out to be a nice guy, that's all.

Fair enough, but that would also mean that Peter was willing to overlook whatever facts he might have had about Will's "shady deeds" as long as Will was being nice to him and all grovel-y. That shows me Peter is still walking pretty much a shady line AND that he's petty and vindictive. Sure, he can be as petty and vindictive as he wants to be -- I'm not denying him the right to be petty. Anyone can be petty and vindictive. But neither quality screams to me as a quality for a good DA. Or a quality of a decent man. I mean, surely, there are more things Peter, the new DA, should be doing to rid the city of far more serious crimes rather than going after L&G for something Will might or might have done in the past--which were apparently not serious enough that Peter was totally willing to overlook as long as Will wasn't banging his wife. That's a clear misuse of his power. He wasn't elected a DA so he could exercise his vicdictiveness toward his estranged wife and her (possible) lover.

I don't imagine that all the DAs in the world have to have squeaky clean lifestyles and principles, and I don't necessarily think having such principles is even mandatory for a good DA. But combined with Peter's track records (sleeping with a hooker for how many times, including at home, sleeping with Kalinda, already having walked pretty serious shady lines--that bribe allegations were serious), and his current behaviours (using his DA resources, using Cary, to gun after L&G)--that man, to me, is an ass, who I honestly wouldn't want as my city's DA.

And honestly, Alicia claiming that Peter was a good DA--that doesn't mean squat to me. She was blind to his faults for a very long time. We don't know how well she knew about his work as a DA. And it can't be an objective assessment.

[stealinghome]

Fair enough, but that would also mean that Peter was willing to overlook whatever facts he might have had about Will's "shady deeds" as long as Will was being nice to him and all grovel-y.

How do you figure? At that point, Peter was definitely no longer in office and in no position to prosecute anyone. He wasn't giving Will special treatment because he had none to give.

All it means is that Peter's heard shady stuff and was surprised, based on what he'd heard, that Will seemed so nice. (Which, interestingly, makes me wonder just what he's heard about Will.)

[HelenBack]

And honestly, Alicia claiming that Peter was a good DA--that doesn't mean squat to me. She was blind to his faults for a very long time. We don't know how well she knew about his work as a DA. And it can't be an objective assessment.

I've been turning that over, too. It's also another reason why she might not want to commit about her feelings for Will - she realizes now she can't trust her own judgment when it comes to the men in her life.

[Peekay]

How do you figure? At that point, Peter was definitely no longer in office and in no position to prosecute anyone. He wasn't giving Will special treatment because he had none to give.

Then why didn't Peter go after Will when he did have the power to do so long before (before he was arrested and put on trial, etc)? Because he didn't have the time? There were other, bigger fish to fry? Then why aren't there other more important fish to fry right now? If Peter had known anything serious about Will to warrant investgiation -- so serious that the moment Peter got his power back, he started acting against L&G right away -- he must have had some solid evidence to go after L&G years ago, but obviously Will or L&G has never been investigated in this fashion. Even if there had been suspicions, they could not have been serious enough or solid enough to act on them in any specific way. (And I wonder how many other law firms could be accused of similar, or worse wrong doings.) But now, after Peter's been elected for the second time, the first thing he does is to go on a fishing expedition on L&G and by extension, Will, who might or might not be seeing Peter's estranged wife. Unless Peter has gained some new inside information on Will and L&G's shady dealings between first and third season, the only thing that's changed is that Will is now close to Alicia.

All it means is that Peter's heard shady stuff and was surprised, based on what he'd heard, that Will seemed so nice. (Which, interestingly, makes me wonder just what he's heard about Will.)

That's one possible reading, yes. What I remember is Peter saying something like "He's nice--I don't remember him being so nice." So they've definitely met before, and it wasn't their first meeting. It didn't give me an impression that Peterhas heard something horrific about Will and the fact that Will seemed nice upon his first meeting surprised him. In my opinion (heh), Peter changed his mind and impression on Will too quickly for him to have anything solid and unacceptably negative on Will.

This doesn't mean Will is squeaky clean or does not deserve being investigated, but I sincerely doubt that this should be what Peter is doing with his first few months as a DA. It all defends on how you read the scene, I suppose, but based on that scene, I don't believe that Peter would've gone after L&G if Alicia hasn't left him. And I don't believe the exposure Peter has had with L&G during season one and two, while Alicia's been working for the firm, has given Peter much more ground to be suspicious about how L&G or Will operates. At least not enough to warrant this type of investigation. Once again, vindictive.

[Nanrad]

Can you please provide an example where Peter has done something to "teach" Alicia a lesson as you've stated? He hasn't done anything yet. In fact, he actually helped Alicia last season with the bloody glove, which saved L&G's client.

Well, I was thinking what some other posters were saying, which was that Peter was doing the investigation to show that Will wasn't all she thought him to be.

No one is saying that Peter shouldn't investigate Will IF he has a valid reason to. I wonder if Peter just has that one instance that he brought up to Alicia or has he found something else. (I wonder if people actually read my whole posts) Some pages ago, I theorized reasons why Peter didn't (or couldn't) try to prosecute Will--both good and bad. If Peter knew before the scandal broke, why didn't he go for it then? If it was after the scandal broke, there was nothing he could do. But, if he has to investigate to find out what Will did, then he didn't know anything to begin with--it was just talk. If he feels there is a legitimate reason behind his suspicion, he should investigate it, but why does he have to be so open about it. It's as if Peter is treating Will like some mastermind criminal.