There should have been some kind of obvious motive. Of course, he had very little character development, but I feel we were owed an explanation. I'm not going to plot out all his scenes and dialogue throughout the first two films, I don't want to put any thoughts into anyone's head. Because my recollection is hazy and I would probably be putting false thoughts into your heads! Throw out some points, let's get started.

Just one notion though. He understood Omerta. Why would he take the risk?

I think for the same reason that Pentangeli intended to. As far as they knew their ultimate boss had thrown them overboard. Facing charges for the shootout and being rather peeved at the "betrayal" it probably wouldn't have taken much to get Cicci to turn.

Cicci was caught in a gunfight during which at least a couple of cops were shot. The Feds would have jumped right on that and squeezed Cicci since he was facing any number of "decades" in prison. Besides, he would have known that Mike wanted Frankie to settle things with the Rosatos which would have made Cicci feel quite insecure about Mike.

In addition to the excellent points Lilo and Olivant made:

The Senate committee deliberately set up Michael by keeping Pentangeli's survival secret. So, they probably went overboard in sweetening a deal to get Cicci to testify, so that Michael would be convinced that Cicci was the only witness against him--and Cicci testified that he never got a direct order from Michael. That was the setup.

Cicci had nothing to lose, did he? He didn't REALLY turn on Michael. He said that he had never gotten an order from Michael (although why they didn't ask who gave him orders is beyond me). They couldn't really use Cicci's testimony in the case against Michael, AND he made a deal, so it was really a win-win for him.

As for that unasked question, if they had asked Cicci who he received his orders from, couldn't they have gotten Tom Hagen? Just for Tessio's murder alone, they could have charged Tom. Perhaps no corroboration???

SB, the fact that any Mafioso talks puts him in danger. But you have to remember that a successful prosecution is based on a successful investigation. Cicci had knowledge that investgators could use as a component of their investigation of Michael. Certainly the substance of Cicci's information about Frankie would give prosecutors' leverage on Frankie.

I agree. Mike wasn't gonna go to jail for being a mobster...but for PERJURY...

He made statements under oath that Pent. could and would have contradicted....

A native born Sicilian couldn't have been more cunning than the feds.

That's a really interesting question, SB. The family chart on display in the Senate hearing room already identified Tom as "consigliere"--i.e., a top member of the crime family. They could have subpoenaed Tom and put him on the stand. He'd have been in the same position as Michael: either lie under oath or plead the Fifth, which would have made him (and his boss) look guilty in the eyes of the world. That would make for an interesting dilemma: Michael would insist that Tom follow him down the perjury path--then they'd both have been in trouble had Pentangeli testified.

I suspect, though (and Oli, please commment on this), that they wouldn't want to put a lawyer--Michael's lawyer--on the stand. The Bar Association probably would protest that it would be a violatin of client/attorney privilege, as well as a threat to other lawyers defending clients accused of crimes.

TB, I think that calling Tom to testify would have been frought with problems and legal objections. I don't know what the federal statute back then said. I suppose that if Cicci's testimony about Tom's involvement in criminal activity could have been corroborated, then the Senate committee could have requested a judge to disqualify Tom as Mike's attorney and compel his testimony. Then maybe they would have granted Tom immunity. It would have been complicated, but I don't think the ABA would have any influence. Remember Bruce Cutler? He and a team attorney were disqualified for being part of a criminal conspiracy, but the court had him on tape participating in it. So, there was indisputable evidence.