An interesting side question: If Fredo had voluntarily come to Michael, before he testified, with both pieces of information, would Michael have pleaded the Fifth Amendment instead of lying under oath by denying the subcommittee's charges?
TB, I never understood why Michael didn't avail himself of his 5th amendment protection regardless of his knowledge about anything. There was no benefit associated with his testifying.
Oli, as you know well, a witness before a Senate committee or subcommittee can't use the Fifth to refuse to take the stand--he must take the stand and be sworn in. His Fifth Amendment privilege extends only to refusing to answer specific questions. The accepted form of refusal is: "I decline to answer that question because my answer might tend to incriminate me."
Michael obsessed over appearing "legitimate." The Senator asked him if he planned the murder of the heads of the Five Families, and other leading questions. If Michael replied that he refused to answer on the grounds that his answer might tend to incriminate him, everyone would have known that the reason his answer might tend to incriminate him was that if he answered truthfully, he'd have to admit that, yes, he did order those murders. It would have been the beginning of the end of his "legitimate" cover.
What's more: The Nevada Legislature in 1958 took control of the gaming industry from the Tax Commission (where oversight was lax) and put it with a new Gaming Commission. One of their tools was the "Black Book," a list of people who could be barred from even entering a casino, much less owning or operating one, because of their criminal records, associations with criminals--or simply "unsavory reputation" even if the license applicant or holder never was convicted of a crime. Michael's taking the Fifth in answer to a question about his complicity in murder could have led the Gaming Commission to put him in the Black Book. He'd lose his licenses. Guess who'd pick them up?
