After Michael and Hagen have that talk about Tessio and Clemenza and Michael tells Hagen "Tessio was always smarter", Michael then tells Hagen of his plan and that it will take place AFTER the baptism.

It actually takes place during the baptism.

Was Michael distrustful of Hagen at that point? Did he perhaps think Hagen could relay that information to his enemies? Because the heads of the five families were all caught slipping that day. Going about their usual business. No heightened sense of security around them.

At that point of Michael's journey, it really could have been anyone, as reiterated by his father many times.

I think it was one of many writing slips, and not a very big one. Whatever else went between Michael and Tom, I don't think he questioned Tom's loyalty

Yeah, I've watched this movie so many times, I find little slips here and there, although I thought "who knows" maybe Michael was keeping Tom at a distance at that point.

Here is the actual dialogue:

"TOM (after Michael sits besides him again)

Do you know how they're gonna come at'cha?

MICHAEL

They're arranging a meeting in Brooklyn. Tessio's ground, where I'll be "safe"

TOM

I always thought it would've been Clemenza, not Tessio...

MICHAEL

It's a smart move -- Tessio was always smarter. But I'm gonna wait -- after the baptism. I've

decided to be Godfather to Connie's baby. And then I'll meet with Don Barzini -- and

Tattaglia -- all of the heads of the Five Families..."


While it appears as though the assassinations were carried out during the actual Baptism. Possibly FFC in his genius showed the assassinations being carried out during the Baptism for dramatic effect. We are shown Michael in one of the holiest situations in Church while switching back and forth with the murders. To add to the drama was the organ music in the background highlights when the murders were actually being done. Brilliant directing for my money. Michael was only following his own advice.

In the final scenes of GF II, Michael definitely questions -- and challenges -- Tom's loyalty. Not really in GF I.

True--at the end of GFII. And, Tom replies: "Why do you hurt me, Michael--I've always been loyal to you." (Notice how the camera pans to Neri, smirking--he must have been the source of the info about Tom being offered a position outside the Family.)

After the Tahoe shooting, Michael tells Tom: "Right now, you're the only one I can completely trust." It's fair to note that Michael began that scene saying: "There's a lot I can't tell you about." You have to wonder: What couldn't he tell Tom about that Tom already didn't know, or couldn't infer? I think at that point Michael wasn't questioning Tom's loyalty ("You're gonna take over...you're gonna be the Don...I give you complete power over Rocco and Neri...over Fredo and his men..."); he probably was being Michael: tell Tom the minimum he needed in order to do the job Michael was giving him...temporarily.

That whole scene is the epitome of Michael's manipulation of all those around him. He's not going to tell Tom everything because "I admire you and I love you". Bull! It's pure manipulation. Michael excludes Tom from the meeting with Ola because Tom only handles certain parts of the Corleone family business, but now he suddenly can designate Tom as the Don. More bull!

As I've opined so many times, Michael blamed and continues to blame Tom for the Corleone's misfortunes. However, now he desperately needs Tom.

Why do say he blamed Tom?

Yes. He practically reduced Tom to tears, telling him, "You're my brother, Tom."

He was even more manipulative when he met with Pentangeli--scaring the s..t out of him by yelling, 'In my house...in my bedroom..." then telling him to put his head in the lion's mouth by "settling these problems with the Rosato brothers." Michael couldn't miss: If they settled, one more worry off of his mind. If they killed Pentangeli, more proof of Roth's duplicity. Michael never more reprehensible than in those two scenes.

Sure thing Turnbull “If they settled, one more worry off of his mind”
However “If they killed Pentangeli, more proof of Roth's duplicity” - My take Michael didn't need “any more proof of Roth's duplicity”

Also Pentangeli was too valuable to Michael and not expendable as Michael needed Pentangeli as his muscle

Did they have to die?
“Michael never more reprehensible than in those two scenes”
Michael hugging Fredo at Mama's funeral and then Michael's chilling kill order look at Neri perhaps could take the top reprehensible scene?

Point taken, Lana. Michael was a reprehensible character all around--only differences in degree.

I think you are being too harsh! on Michael

There were caring, loving moments too – among others

Fredo
1. comforting Fredo after Deanna's offensive “real man, daigos are crazy, Wop” insult and humiliation
2. brothers having drinks in Havana
3. reassuring Fredo, Fredo is not a gypsy!
4. Concerned about Fredo and trying to get Fredo out of Havana

Oops! Edit and Delete not a good mix! [Sorry reposted from yesterday]

Tom's loyalty was a given, beyond reproach irrespective of what Michael did or didn't do, which Michael certainly took for granted too

It did not seem to me “Michael blamed and continues to blame Tom for the Corleone's misfortunes”

Tom and Fredo

This theory is often floated but nothing I see supports it
I don't believe “Michael blamed and continues to blame Tom for the Corleone's misfortunes”

In the novel, Tom blamed himself for Sonny's death. "He knew, now, that he was no wartime consigliere. Old Genco would have smelled a rat." This not to say that Michael should have blamed Tom for the Corleones' misfortunes--Michael was where the buck stopped. But, just consider: Tom didn't know that Pentangeli had survived the garotting and was in Federal custody, to be used as a witness against him. "Our people in the NY Detectives say he was half-dead, scared, talking out loud about how you betrayed him...Roth played this beautifully." Duh, Tom: how come you didn't know he survived if "our people in NY" did? He also tells Michael, "Fredo says he knows nothing, and I believe him." But, Fredo knew about Pentangeli's survival--and that the Senate lawyer, Questadt, belonged to Roth. Had he known that, and IMO he should have, he'd have protected Michael from that near-perjury rap.

From what we saw in the movie -

Tom "He's a good lawyer” but was not up to the job of wartime Consigliere [perhaps not even peacetime Consigliere!]

Besides the two instances you have referred to - Pentangeli's survival and Fredo knowing plenty including Senate lawyer, Questadt, belonged to Roth - happened towards the end of Godfather II and did not really result in the Corleones' misfortunes as such
Certainly caused grief but Michael ended up beating the perjury rap

Whilst Tom may have been incompetent as Consigliere I still don't see any evidence? that supports this theory “Michael blamed and continues to blame Tom for the Corleone's misfortunes”

Actually Turnbull even if Tom had known and I agree Tom should have that “Pentangeli had survived and was in Federal custody, to be used as a witness against Michael”

• What would Michael have done differently? though Nothing!

Michael in reality could never have taken the fifth amendment to the US Constitution

So Michael would still have lied under oath, denied all the charges and committed perjury
ie: It's up to five counts of perjury rap remains unchanged

Michael wanted to show that he has nothing to hide, nothing that would incriminate him
So Michael taking the fifth was never an option

Whilst knowing about Questadt confirmed it was kangaroo court [no surprise! there] it was not pivotal in acing “what the hell happened here”!

• Concorde flight

The only difference I can think of is, the appearance of Frankie Pentangeli's brother, Vincenzo would have been somewhat realistic instead of Vincenzo magically materialising all the way from Sicily in the time the committee was in recess – was it overnight?! or over the weekend?!

Then again the chairman was very helpful telling Michael

This might explain how all the information about Frankie suddenly becomes available. There's a fear of leaking information and being the only source, but once some part of it is leaked people tend to loosen up quite a bit.

It's a small gesture, but Questadt shoots a quick look at the Senator as he reveals the additional witness, and at the very end of the shot Questadt has his head resting on his hands, looking (to me) pensive. To me, it seems he thinks the Senator just screwed up.

No doubt he wouldn't, couldn't, in fact never could take the fifth amendment to the US Constitution So nothing changes

Tom was incompetent not up to the job
I still don't see any evidence? that supports this theory “Michael blamed and continues to blame Tom for the Corleone's misfortunes”

In a criminal trial, both the defense and the prosecution must provide each other with lists of witnesses they intend to call--before the trial opens. I believe that, in a Congressional investigation, the official chairing the hearing must reveal the names of witnesses to be called. But, the official doesn't have to reveal the names before the hearing opens. That's part of how they almost trapped Michael. The biggest part was that Questadt was in Roths' pocket.

Did anyone else notice that
Sure thing Pete “Michael's challenge to produce a witness” goaded the chairman into revealing their surprise additional witness

A fat lot of good it did!
Questadt couldn't stop Michael reading his statement, couldn't stop the Chairman revealing their surprise additional witness

The biggest part was that the Chairman was in Michael's pocket

You are not wrong!

The chairman was going easy on Michael instead of - So, what's your answer gonna be, Don Corleone
Michael answering the chairman's questions was child's play!

We have testimony from a witness, a previous witness, one Willie Cicci. He has stated that you are the head of the most powerful Mafia family in this country Are you? No I'm not

The witness has testified that you are personally responsible for the murder of a New York City police Caption in 1947 and with him a man named Virgil Sollozzo You deny this? Yes I do

Is it true? that in the year 1950 you devised the murder of the heads of the so called five families in New York to assume and consolidate your nefarious power That's a complete falsehood

“No, no I am going to allow Mr. Corleone to read his statement I'll put it in the record” against the advice of the senator and Questadt

But that was the whole point of the perjury trap: Give Michael the opportunity to tell easy lies under oath and then produce a surprise witness to contradict him.

That might not be enough to convict Michael in court but it would ruin his veneer of legitimacy and allow the gambling commission to drive Michael from the casino industry.

Then got goaded into revealing vital information helping him beat the perjury rap

How can the gambling commission drive Michael from the casino industry when he does not have any interests or control over gambling, his non-existent casino holdings

What was the "vital information" they revealed? That they were holding Pentangeli?


He "owned or controlled three hotels," as Geary noted in his meeting with Michael. They were hidden: a big violation of Gaming Commission regulations as well as Nevada law. As I posted a while back, the Gaming Commission could have launched an investigation of Michael at any time, for any reason--especially if he'd taken the Fifth Amendment when asked any of those questions; or if Pentangeli had testified as planned.

That they had somebody, and that the Corleones had till Monday morning to identify and counter that person.

If he hadn't revealed the vital information they had another witness for the Corleones to identify and counter that person, Michael couldn't have figured Pentangeli was alive

He confidently lied under oath believing Pentangeli was dead and Cicci had already stated he never got a direct order and there was no other witness

He would have turned up totally in the dark and the committee would have sprung Pentangeli who would have testified as planned

As seen in the movie, he didn't take the Fifth Amendment which we'd discussed was never an option and Pentangeli didn't testify against him only because of the appearance of his brother which Michael was able to arrange because of the vital information

We'd debated Michael's hidden interests, links, undeclared ownership and control in casinos, his non-existent casino holdings, no licenses in his name in Rocco linked to Michael thread

My view is still the same nobody could find any trace, no trail whatsoever connecting Michael so any investigation will end up deader than dead as it did, failing dismally

As I posted earlier: the Subcommittee chairman had to reveal the names of all witnesses that he intended to call--including Pentangeli--because it was a public hearing. He chose to reveal Pentangeli after Michael testified in order to put him in the perjury trap engineered by Roth, through Questadt.



Michael testified that he owned "some stock" in the hotels, "but very little." But, keep in mind that Geary, when he attempted to "squeeze" Michael in the earlier scene at Anthony's party, started by saying that Michael "owned or controlled three hotels." Since he knew about Michael's hidden interests, he could have revealed that info to the Gaming Commission, which could have nailed Michael for perjury, or worse, irrespective of whether or not Pentangeli testified. He didn't because by that time, Michael had squeezed him via the hooker murder. But, since Geary knew, it wouldn't be hard for the Commission's investigative staff to uncover Michael's hidden interests--if they wanted to or had reason to. The Gaming Commission was good at looking the other way when casino owners brought a lot of taxable income to the state. Bjut, they could turn on a dime if they wanted to.

As I posted in Rocco linked to Michael thread:
Godfather movies are not documentaries not factual They are for entertainment Technicalities not intended, in fictional stories
It is nice to know, fun to flesh out but not critical for the audience to be knowledgeable about the legal details, to enjoy the movies

Once He chose to reveal Pentangeli the perjury trap was no longer a trap because Corleones could identify and counter that person

Again nobody could uncover Michael's hidden interests not even the FBI Nobody could nail him because his web of fronting was like fort Knox

How did Geary penetrate Fort Knox?

I don't disagree the senate committee's strategy for Michael's perjury trap was “giving Michael the opportunity to tell easy lies under oath” Are you?! You deny this?! Is it true?! ie: enough rope to hang himself

The committee was obviously banking on their surprise star witness who has had no buffer between Michael and himself, corroborating the committee's nefarious charges [murder, crime empire, control of all the gambling and a lot more!] against Michael - It's up to five counts of perjury

However all the perjury trap ended up pointless with the committee's star witness not contradicting Michael and the sworn affidavit not worth the paper it was sworn on - All because the chairman was goaded into “the dumbest move in the all of GF2” telling Michael of their additional witness

We know how incredibly clever and resourceful Roth was - Lethal!

If Roth couldn't uncover Michael's “hidden interests, links, undeclared ownership and control in casinos” the chances of “the Commission's investigative staff uncovering Michael's hidden interests” is Buckleys and none!

Geary said Michael "owned or controlled three hotels" seemingly speculation due to their licence dealings but I doubt any direct links to Michael was uncovered

If Geary had uncovered the slightest whiff Geary would have squeezed Michael back with exposure or at least threatening Michael with an investigation for “Michael squeezing him via the hooker murder”

Everybody undoubtedly knew who Michael really was that Michael came to Nevada masquerading as 'legitimate' decent businessman - in his oily hair, dressed up in those silk suits - for 'legitimate' gambling business after consolidating his nefarious power in New York
However proof is scarcer than hen's teeth!

He didn't He couldn't

This is one of the occasions where the novel and film differ, in my opinion. In Part II, we see Genco almost literally wet himself when Fanucci gives him the eye. Vito, of course, saw through him immediately. So much so that he risks incurring his wrath by offering him much less than he demanded from the clothing heist. Of course there was no wrath because Fanucci was all facade. So would the movie's Genco have smelled a rat? Doubtful, given what we were shown of his judgement?

As you said, the novel and the movie differ. Genco's cowardice toward Fanucci was an invention of GFII. The statement about Genco smelling a rat was strictly from the novel. What makes it convincing for me is that Tom had two strikes against him as consigliere. First, he wasn't Sicilian, second, he was a lawyer. As a non-Sicilian he didn't fully grasp the irrational (to him) Sicilian need for vengeance despite the overarching risks--which is what Carlo did. As a lawyer, Tom looked to reconcile differences and avoid trials (or shooting in Mob affairs), when what was needed was violence to combat violence. The telling phrase in the novel came after Michael agreed to kill Sol and Mac. If I recall correctly, Puzo wrote: "Hagen looked glum - the statesman forced to go to war. 'At least we know what we're going to do.'."

Pop had Genco -- look what I got