In other words, you disagree with Hagan's remark that "Roth played this one beautifully." I believe your argument is mistaken, however.

Firstly, anything Pentangeli says about Roth at any Senate hearing is strictly non-credible and thus de facto inadmissible as a legal basis for prosecuting Roth. They are known enemies, and they did not deal directly with one another. This is why the Senate needed witnesses from within the Corelone family to prosecute Michael.

The Senate had a paid Corelone hitman saying Michael was a crime boss -- Cicci. But because there were "buffiz" between him and Mike, his testimony could not get the latter into any legal trouble. The purpose of Cicci testifying was to roll out the red carpet for Frankie, not to give incriminating evidence, because what he says does not count as legal evidence. This is why when Pentangeli appears before the Committee, the Chairman says, "we finally have a witness who had no buffer between him and Michael Corleone."

My point is that Frankie never dealt with Roth directly, and even if he did, because he was his enemy, his testimony would be viewed as non-credible.

Would Roth be worried about bad publicity? Hardly. He has been in the underworld for 50 years. Everyone knows he's a mobster, so from his point of view, let people say what they wish, as long as they don't have evidence to put me behind bars.

In short, I agree with Hagan's remark, quoted above, and with Ice, who asks the key question in his original post, #2.