Suppose Fredo had asked to see Michael, well before the Senate hearing, and voluntarily told him that the Feds had Pentangeli, and that the Senate lawyer, Questadt, "belonged to Roth":

Would Michael have given him a pass?

Would Michael have done anything differently at the Senate hearing?

Yes, but I think he would have still banished him.

Hi everyone. I am new to the forum.

I think there was nothing that Fredo could do to make Michael forgive at that point.
First and foremost, Kay lost the boy (well, had the abortion) because of the shooting in Michael's mind. Second, the shooting endangered his children and Kay. I believe that FFC is genius with this plot- maybe this is the only believable reason to make Mike kill anybody.

Finally, just as an alternative if he lets him live even if he banishes him, Fredo would have been a constant threat to the family as he was the brother of Connie too.

Welcome, Appolla! Hopeto see many more thoughtful posts from you

Once Michael realized that it was Fredo, inadvertently or not, that was involved with not only his attempted murder but that of his wife and children, I don't think there was anything on earth that would have prevented Fredo's execution.

Fredo would still have been banished and killed eventually, but I think Michael would have treated him differently. He would thank him for the information and order him to stay on the compound and not use the phone or other means to contact anyone until the hearings were over. He would have also appointed Neri to keep a close eye on Fredo.

He would then tell Tom about the situation and they would have basically hatched a similar plan. Tom would go to Pentangeli and tell him his brother would be coming to the U.S. to watch him testify, and then lead him down the road to suicide, at which point Michael would have done the same thing at the hearing (which in fact might have ben cancelled on Pentangeli's death since there would no longer be a perjury trap).

Thereafter Michael would send Neri and Fredo on a fishing trip.

I don't think he would have killed him, but he would have basically disowned him. Personally, I think that the reason Michael ultimately decided to have Fredo killed wasn't just because he "took sides against the Family" but because he lied about it, willingly, and then went on his "I was passed over" rant. That rant is what sealed his fate because it showed Michael that Fredo would never be happy just being "the Don's brother"; he would always resent the fact that he wasn't made the Don, whether or not that was "how Pop wanted it". That, IMO, is the real reason Michael had him killed: he could never trust that Fredo wouldn't seize any opportunity or sign of weakness on his part to take another stab at control in the future. If he had been left alive, in the GFIII timeline maybe Fredo would have been manipulated by Altobello and Luchesi instead of Zaza, or maybe he would try to do another hit on Michael, or any number of possibilities. He couldn't be trusted even as a brother after that rant happened.

If Fredo had confessed and went back to supporting his brother, I think he would have gotten a pass but been out of the family and probably given one of the "Mickey Mouse nightclubs" to earn a living. I don't think he would have been killed, but he would have been kept on a very short leash and no longer privy to any information about the family business, so if he ever did decide to try another coup he wouldn't have anything of value to offer.

The most that I think that would have happened would be a mock execution or some similar warning to let him know that was the second time he took sides against the family, and the next time there would be no forgiveness.

That is an interesting analysis waynethegame. What is a mock execution?

Personally,maybe because what happened to Carlo I always thought that Michael knew he was going to kill Fredo when he got back from Cuba. I always felt that he implied this when he said to Tom to get in touch with Fredo and tell him everything was all right. I thought he wanted to sweet talk him to come back so he could kill him anytime. I even had the feeling that Tom understood this too.

Mock execution is basically dragging him out somewhere, putting an empty gun to his head and firing it, as a warning (this time the chamber was empty, next time there'll be a bullet). Or something similar to that.

Knowing Michael, he definitely could have made up his mind to kill Fredo immediately; we as viewers are led to believe that the "deciding factor" was Fredo's rant, but who knows. I'm probably giving Michael the benefit of the doubt given how manipulative he was of Carlo in a similar situation, but also remember three things were different between Carlo and Fredo: 1) Carlo wasn't blood, 2) Carlo was beating/abusing Michael sister, and 3) Carlo's actions directly led to the death of his eldest brother and probably helped his father along the way due to the stress.

Fredo's actions COULD have caused problems and certainly set MIchael up for perjury charges, but it didn't result in death of anyone important (I guess for Pentangeli). So I don't think it was quite the same situation as with Carlo, especially with Fredo being flesh and blood not via marriage.

I agree with this.

I don't think that would have been a good idea. It would only humiliate Fredo even further as a brother and result in even more resentfulness on Fredo's part.

Michael killed Fredo because, as he tells Cardinal Lamberto, "he injured me." Banishment would have had the same practical effect of guaranteeeing Michael's safety.

If the rant - and Michael's fear of future treachery - was really what sealed Fredo's doom, Michael would not have continued to allow Fredo to access the compound, nor would he have allowed him to live as long as Mama was alive.

Michael was so stunned and bewildered in Cuba that his "You're still my brother" plea may have been sincere. But I think once Michael calmed down Fredo's die was cast.

There's no way that Michael, at that stage of his life, would have given Fredo a pass. It was just a question of when.

I think that Michael did not have any intention of murdering Fredo until the boathouse conversation. I think that Michael became enraged at Fredo's stupidity and weakness. I think Michael was almost apoplexic when hearing Fredo's words. The injury that Michael told Cardinal Lamberto about was an injury to Michael's sense of logic and order which required that Fredo accept Vito's placing him in a subordinate position, his being taken care of by Michael, and his lack of adequate intelligence, perception, and force.

I have stated in other threads that Fredo was lying to Michael even in the boathouse scene when he claims he didn't know it was going to be a hit.

His story just does not hold up. He claims Johnny Ola told him Michael was being "tough on the negotiations," and there would be something in it for him if he could ..what? Use his brilliant negotiating skills to change Michael's mind? Don't think so. I think it was more like "make sure those drapes are opened."

True DT, but even if Michael wasn't aware of the degree of Fredo's complicity, he was still enraged about Fredo's naievete.

People here have made a strong case for Michael whacking Fredo, even if he came clean, because his betrayal had nearly cost Michael and Kay their lives, and Fredo couldn't be trusted. I'm not saying they're wrong. But I feel even cold-hearted Michael might have given Fredo a pass if not for that outburst. And, if he volunteered to tell Michael about Frankie and Questadt before Michael's testimony, it'd work in Fredo's favor. I think he'd probably banish Fredo and be wary of him forever, but I don't think he would have had him whacked.

As for the Senate hearing:

When gangsters are called before Congressional subcommittees, they always "take the Fifth." They're not interested in convincing people that they're legitimate--they just want to avoid prosecution. But Michael insisted he was completely legitimate. Imagine, when the Senator asked him if he was responsible for planning the massacre of the heads of the Five Families, Mihael gave the Fifth Amendment answer, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me." Everyone would have known that the reason his answer might tend to incriminate him was that, yes, he did plan it. That would have been the end of his "legitimate" persona and it could even have cost him his casino licenses and invited more investigation.

I think if he knew in advance about Frankie and Questadt, he would have reached for Vincenzo and had Tom arrange--demand--that Frankie's brother be allowed to visit him at the Air Force base. That in itself would have let the Senate subcommittee know that Michael knew they had Frankie. They might have refused to let Vincenzo visit Frankie. But then Tom could have had news reporters on the family payroll blast stories about Frankie's survival, how he was an arch-fiend set up to spill lies to save his own hide, etc.--possibly enough to invalidate Frankie's credibility even before he testified, maybe even enough for Questadt to withdraw him as a witness. But even if Frankie did get sworn in, Michael would have produced Vincenzo at the hearing. I just can't see Michael taking the Fifth.

Pretty good analysis TB. I especially agree with your 1st paragraph. Also, you're right that Michael would have produced Frankie's brother as insurance.