Would Michael have been convicted of perjury and been sentenced to a long prison term if Frank Pentangeli had testified against him at the Senate hearing?

Probably not. Questadt, the Senate lawyer who “belongs to Roth,” would have forwarded the transcript of Michael’s and Pentangeli’s testimony to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. But, to bring charges against Michael, the US Attorney would need not only Pentangeli, but also a “corroborating witness” (someone who could back up Pentangeli’s testimony with his own eyewitness accounts), and/or “corroborating evidence” (i.e., a court approved wiretap). The only living witnesses who could back up Pentangeli were Tom, Rocco and Neri; and they would never have testified against Michael. And, Michael didn’t strike me as the type to say anything incriminating on the phone. So, I’m guessing, the US Attorney wouldn’t have been able to indict Michael—much less try him and convict him.

But, Roth still would have won. Having Pentangeli at a public Senate hearing, telling the world that Michael ordered the murders of the heads of the Five Families, ran all the illegal gambling in America, owned or controlled Nevada casinos--and that he killed on Michael's orders--would have forever destroyed Michael’s pretense of being a legitimate businessman. The indelible impression that would have stuck would have been Michael as America’s top criminal. He’d spend the rest of his life denying Pentangeli’s charges and
leaning on the wobbly claim that he hadn’t been indicted.

What’s more, the Nevada Gaming Commission would have launched an investigation of Michael’s proxy ownership of casinos. At minimum, they would have yanked his licenses and could charge him with fraud in obtaining them. And, guess who’d pick up the licenses for Michael’s former casino holdings? Roth!

Your thoughts?