When Michael was meeting with Senator Geary - he introduces Tom as his lawyer, then Geary says I thought we would be alone and Michael says, I trust these men with my life. But later, when Johnny Ola meets with Michael he sends Tom away~ why?
Why couldn't Tom know about the meeting? I know later Michael acknowledged to Tom that he kept secrets, but why? Was it to protect Tom incase the deal went bad with Ola and Roth?

In the first Godfather, Michael explained to Tom that he would be in on the legal side only; Tom was not a wartime consigliere and Michael knew that his agreements with Roth could turn into an all out war. But Michael knew that his meeting with Geary was very standard, nothing dangerous. You could believe Michael, that he was keeping Tom out of the heavy stuff because he wanted to keep him safe, but you can also come to the conclusion that Hagen was just never trusted fully by Michael. Maybe it was because he wasn't blood, maybe because he wasn't Sicilian, maybe it was because of his poor performance in the war with the five families while Sonny was acting Don. I guess we'll never know what Michal was really thinking.

However Hagen was made acting Don of the family while Michael was in Cuba, however, this seemed to be something just to keep Tom on his side (Michael was always a little paranoid that Tom would leave, even if he didn't trust Tom, Tom was a good lawyer and would prove very helpful to him). Besides Michael new that all business at that time had to deal with Roth and Ola and so Tom would not have to do much besides keeping Kay and the kids safe.

This topic has been covered here many times. Briefly: Michael meant it when he said Tom wasn't a wartime consigliere. He said Tom would be "our lawyer" in Nevada. He needed Tom to have an absolutely legitimate front so he could represent the family in its attempt to be "legitimate" in Nevada. The business with Geary was nominally "legitimate" (getting a license transferred). The business with Johnny Ola wasn't "legitimate."

This topic has been covered quite a bit in past posts. However, I opine that a major reason for Mike excluding Tom from certain intimate family conversations was Mike's belief that Tom was, in part, responsible for Sonny's death because the families faked him out and that he just was not a wartime Consigliere. That he was a fine lawyer with a fine mind in that regard was great, but a Mafia Don needs someone with cunning which Genco had, but Tom lacked.

When I first saw Godfather II, i definetly thought they were setting up Tom's betrayal of Mike, just by that opening scene.

When Mike asks Tom to leave, it seems like the camera is purposely staying on Tom to show how angry is he about this, and then even when Tom leaves the room and Mike is talking, the camera still stays on Tom. I definetly thought this would lead to some sort of storyline later in the movie but it never really panned out.

Originally posted by Olivant:
interesting thought, I never saw it that way. It always seemed to me like Mike didn't shun Tom because of some personal vendetta he held against him, just seemed like he was trying to protect him. Makes you wonder again about Tom's mysterious death and if Michael had anything to do with it. But thats a whole 'nother topic

Turnbull is right, like always. Michael needed Tom legitimate and he also needed to know that he could fully trust Tom. He coulden't risk losing Tom because he needed him to set up shop in Nevada. Also by keeping those secrets from him, when the shooting occurred, he knew he could absolutely trust Tom.

I don't think Michael felt that Tom was responsible for Sonny's death in any shape of the matter. I actually think that's a pretty silly statement. If Michael felt Tom was responsible for Sonny's death then he would have gotten rid of him long before Tahoe. Michael knew that Tom was closer to Sonny than anyone else and in the novel Michael expresses a twinge of jealousy at their relationship. Sonny and Tom allowed people in, in ways Michael never did. Michael was cold towards everyone, he never let people in, but that is what made him such a good Don.

You forget that Tom pretty much grew up in the Corleone household. Therefore, he was as close to Mike as a non-blood brother can be. Mike knew that Vito obviously held Tom in high esteem and Mike just as obviously respected his father's opinion. So, he did have some love and respect for Tom. But, as the novel clearly points out, Tom was faked out by the five families, a fake that, as the novel also points out, Genco would never have fallen for. Mike clearly held Tom in part responsible for Sonny's death. How could he not? A consigliere's job is to protect the family's interests and its people. By Sonny's death, Tom failed to do that. It's one thing to lose a capo or soldier. But, to lose a family member is another thing entirely. And he may have also blamed Tom in part for having fallen into the trap Hyman Roth set for him at the Senate hearing. Keep in mind that eventually Mike turns on Tom when he tells him that he can take his family and his mistress and leave the Corleones. Remember that?

Michael knew that Sonny was a hothead, and would get himself killed sooner or later. Intellectually he couldn't have blamed Tom for Sonny's assassination. But Tom, as a lawyer and non-Sicilian, didn't take into account that Carlo, a Sicilian, would thirst for revenge, no matter how dangerous it was to him or how obvious was his involvement. So,emotionally, Michael may have held Tom accountable for the fakeout that led to Sonny's assassination. Another emotional factor: had Sonny lived, Michael might not have had to lead a life of crime. Michael might have been able to return from Sicily and lead a "normal" life. Michael may have resented that, and have held it against Tom.

I was never convinced by the way FFC deals with Tom. The very fact that Tom was still out and Michael kept things secretly from him does not make sense in my opinion.
It is easy to say where in the novel FFC got the idea of his being out, but the novel clearly shows us that very soon he was back in, and not as just a lawyer.
When Michael says to Tom that he is out, he says it to everyone: “Tom Hagen is no longer the consigliere. He’s going to be our lawyer in Vegas. In about two months he’ll move out there permanently with his family. Strictly as a lawyer. Nobody goes to him with any other business as of now, this minute. <…> Besides, if I ever need any advice, who’s a better counselor than my father?”
This is not a simple speech. Why was he saying all this? There are four people to hear it. Neri, who was under his own command as personal bodyguard, and didn’t need to be told “not to go to Tom”, Carlo, who was condemned never to see Vegas, and two capos who were to remain in NY anyway, so the speech about Tom’s future employment in Vegas was of no use to them. Besides these three, as we learn later, were suspected by Vito and Mike as future traitors. One of them was, to their almost certain knowledge, already a spy of Barzini’s, the other two might betray at any moment. So, I believe, it was all (I mean all Mike’s performance at this meeting) directed and meant for Barzini, who will certainly learn the details sooner or later through one of them, who will betray. That’s why he proceeds telling them not to recruit new men for their regimes, stay still and wait for some negotiations that will solve everything before Corleones move to Vegas.
In fact, he fakes the 5 Families exactly as they did it with Sonny – he shows that he is not going to do anything, that he sits quietly and prepares nothing. To put them at their peace, he does not react on their provocations, as they did then. And Tom’s peaceful legal settlement in Vegas is another proof that he is no danger, his best forces are moved out of NY, including Intellectual forces.
It doesn’t mean that he underrates or distrusts Tom in any way. He plays a dreadfully dangerous game of chess with his enemies and moves his chessmen in the way that serves his plans best. Here’s the continuation of dialogue, when everyone left and there’s only Tom, Vito and Michael:
Tom: “Mike, why are you cutting me out of action?”
Mike: “You’ll be my number1 man in Vegas… etc. <…>
Tom: “I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about Rocco Lampone building a secret regime without my knowledge. I’m talking about you dealing direct with Neri rather than through me or a caporegime. <…> so, why am I out of the action?”
Michael faced him and without flinching gave it to him straight. “Tom, you are not a wartime consigliere. Things may get tough with this move we are trying to make and we may have to fight. And I want to get you out of the line of fire too, just in case.”
This is not such a very simple speech too. Why tell that straight? He was so subtly manipulative already that he couldn’t just say a thing to make Tom flush, without a purpose. And why to say polar things – you’re no good consigliere but I love you so much that I want to get you out of the line of fire?
He was not expecting war, we know that secret regime was used to prepare and fulfill his elaborate plan quickly and quietly. So he didn’t need any special wartime consigliere. With Tom around, he lost nothing, he might as well listen to his father’s advices rather than Tom’s. Then why mention it? Strange?
No, I don’t think so. Michael might awake the sense of guilt in Tom with one aim – to make him accept the decision and the situation that he didn’t understand without questioning, resign and do what he was told to. He doesn’t want to explain anything before it was necessary, and yet they both, Don and him, held Tom in such esteem as to understand that he will figure everything out soon enough.
Reproach worked, but Vito pitied Tom at last. Later the Don says: “Tom, it’s not just Michael. I advised him on these matters. There are things that may have to be done that I don’t want in any way to be responsible for. That is my wish, not Michael’s I never thought you were a bad consigliere. I thought Santino a bad Don <…> For reasons which you can’t know, you must have no part in what may happen. By the way, I told Michael that Lampone’s secret regime would not escape your eye. So that shows I have faith in you."
He gives him enough to understand that all reasons for his being out that were stated before, (legal status, not a wartime consigliere, etc) are invalid. Real reasons he “can’t know”. But he, Vito, wishes to spare him something. Later he says to Mike: “He can’t be involved in this”.
What it was we may guess easily. In the first place, Carlo’s execution. The thing Don “didn’t want in any way to be responsible for”. And second – execution of another closest Family member, who will turn traitoir, if it will not be Carlo himself. Also it might be concern for his safety, and not being messed in the massacre in any way so he wouldn’t lose his legal status, but these were additional reasons. Main was, that Michael had to convince Barzini in his safety in any dealings with himself. The major war, or even important operation, wouldn’t be arranged without a consigliere, and Barzini didn’t know how Michael rated Tom’s warring qualities. So he might surmise that if such an important figure as Tom is moved to legal field, nothing dangerous will happen before “legalization”. As in chess sometimes you have to sacrifice important chessmen to clear your way. Tom was ideal sacrifice – important, but not a big loss being out, because the Don himself remained on the spot to advise him.
But everything didn’t go as was expected. The Don died earlier than Mike was ready. It brought changes in their plans, he even had to make wholly new plan. And now he had no choice – he needed someone to act as buffer and arrange everything swiftly and efficiently. And a very significant scene between him and Tom follows after the funeral:
“Michael smiled at Hagen. “I guess you’ve figured everything out by now.” Hagen nodded. “It wasn’t hard. Except why you wanted me out of the action. But I put on my Sicilian hat and I finally figured that too.” Michael laughed. “The old man said you would. But that’s a luxury I can’t afford anymore. I need you here…”
So, Tom is returned to Consigliere spot. He is inside of everything, and, except the details of operation, they never meant to keep it secret from him – they knew that he would figure everything out. On the next day, when Tom said obvious thing, Mike is a bit angry and he says: “I don’t need a consigliere to give me that kind of advice.” So we know from his own lips that he considers Hagen his consigliere. And we have no reason to think that he will be removed again. There are no reasons anymore.
And that Mike would keep things in secret from him for no better reason than “respecting and loving him so much” – sounds absolutely ridiculous. Tom was no nice maiden, and Michael, intelligent as he was, would never mess tender feelings with business matters, and would never repeat Sonny’s mistake underrating Tom’s advice. Tom was part of the most illegal, even criminal transactions of the Family during his work with Vito, without losing his legitimacy or self-esteem in any way. Business with Roth was actually legit, except only pushing Klingman out… But that was terrible secret, really! Tom would never tumble.
After all the subtleties of Puzo’s book the way everyone begin to act in FFC’s sequel seems almost unbearably primitive, if not stupid.

If you step back a bit, you have to question Michael's statement that Tom was out, in part, because of his need to have Tom be "legitimate" for the move to Nevada:
If Tom were expected to take part in one or more of the hits during The Great Massacre of 1955, there'd be a risk of his being arrested or recognized, which would compromise his role in Nevada. But neither Michael nor his father had ever used Tom as muscle for the family. At the same time, Tom was still a full-fledged member of the Corleone Family, so any notoriety that stuck to the family as a result of the massacre (as Connie said, "Read the papers, read the papers") stuck to him.
IMO, if Michael really wanted Tom to be "legit" for Nevada, Tom would have quietly left the family months before the massacre to set up a law office in Nevada. He might even have taken on clients other than the family, to establish himself as an "independent" lawyer. He would have found a way to be someplace public and prominent during the massacre.

Of course - you are right. All his sweet-talking about Tom's being out is just another display of his Sicilian cunning. He misleads everyone about his true intentions and plans masterfully, even closest insiders of the Family suspect nothing.
All this occured to me first because of that Puso's comment: "Michael faced him and without flinching gave it to him straight."
After all Puzo wrote about Sicilians, if a Sicilian, (as cunning one as Michael especially), gives you something straight, the very fact must warn you.
The meaning of his words must be consequently as far from being straight as possible.

You bet! Michael's cunning, and sweet-talking, is shown brilliantly in GF II, right after the Tahoe shooting. He tells Tom he kept things from him because he loves him , and he's his brother, etc. Tom laps it up. Michael played him like a violin. As soon as Michael got back from Havana, he was shouting at Tom, and humiliated him badly in that penultimate scene in the boathouse.

Well, I agree that Coppola tries to imitate that subtlety of behavior which Puzo gave to Michael. And I believe it is really as good attempt as any attempt to imitate a masterpiece might be at all.
But don't you see some very important deficiency here?
I’m not sure I can word it intelligibly, but I’ll try. Perhaps, he plays Tom like a violin. But Michael never did such things without purpose, absolute necessity. And all his actions lack in sense. Why should he keep things from Tom? We were never told about things worth keeping in secret, it looked rather stupid, but that I wrote above. Why should he use his cunning telling him that he’s his brother after shooting? At that moment Tom would do anything he requested without being mollified. Why should he shout at him after? No purpose. Tom wouldn’t leave him, Michael knew his loyalty, and, not being stupid, would not risk it insulting and humiliating Tom without ultimate reason. As well as anyone. Puzo shows us Michael (in the Neri story etc) as very careful and tactful in his dealings with ANY people around him.
And the boathouse scene always left me confused. Michael was a man who did everything after long, careful examining, planning, taking all precautions. He wished everything to be foolproof and as safe for everyone involved, that he waited for years to find a proper moment. His plans were elaborate, he was controlling every minutiae. Such a man simply could not say that he wanted the next plane to be met and Roth killed by whatever price, and sacrifice such a good and loyal professional as Rocco for no purpose. Anyone would make a better plan regarding Roth, they could simply put a hitman on the roof of any building that Roth was to enter. If Michael would behave in such a way with his people, nobody would come to work for him. It was all not-Michael-like.
And by the way, I would like to see the person who proposed other job to Hagen. That was swell.
Anyway many maneuvers in GF2 are designed as cunning, but they are perfectly unnecessary in the simple and straight matter they are about.
And where he should use some subtlety of mind he suddenly begins to act bluntly unlike himself. All his scenes with Kay for example. Coppola misses the entirety of character, you maybe will not agree with me but I feel it strongly.

I gave it all additional thought and came to conclusion that Coppola underrates Tom.
He is not a man to be played so easily, to swallow everything in it’s straight meaning and sitting tear eyed being called a brother. Impassive-faced Tom, who never trusted anybody’s word, always looking for double meaning, calculating and figuring everything out!
Tom, who lived and worked so many years with Vito, and Vito, as we know, never told anything straightly and entirely! And he perceived every subtlety in Vito’s mood, every hint concealed behind his words! Tom, who never displayed his emotions without thinking things through, who analyzed everyone around and was pretty manipulative himself!
He becomes in FFC’s hands naïve and snotty somewhat like Fredo…

Justme- I agree with you completely. I think FFC made Tom's character into a weak version. In the novel Tom seemed to be stronger and smarter. He even taught Michael the ins and outs of the business for the first two years after Sonny's death. Puzo spent alot of time in the novel describing Tom's thought process and how much he understood Don Vito's way of thinking.

Thanx, Krlea! You successively summarized in a few words what I tried to express so superfluously.