A bit 'of recent Italian history
post: 03/01/2010 13:17
published by: Anthony Rispoli
Close on January 19, the date on which our Government celebrate the tenth anniversary with great fanfare by the death of Craxi, I am extremely thrilled with all manzogne \u200b\u200bthat are said about the former prime minister. Now that they do their children, and Bobo Craxi Stefania is normal for the blood relationship, or because objectively, if they have always been the good life was thanks to his father pocketed bribes. That face the current Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, the same: if the three TV Berlusconi, who paid bribes to the needs and to Craxi in return for which he received before the so-called "Berlusconi decrees" that allowed him to convey to national level, the first thing given to RAI, and then the Mammi law, as well as a number of other laws in favor, and if he is Prime Minister, Berlusconi owes to his TV and the fact that Craxi's created and Dell'Utri Force Italy. So without Craxi and without the hundreds of billions of pounds that came from unknown benefactors, Berlusconi would be no more than a building speculators, at best hypothesis. Consequently, certain debts, even moral, to be paid. So far we have.
But the avalanche of nonsense that these are the facts, to distort the way they did things, are absurd. Let's dispel at least some of the myths that are told.
- "conspiracy by the left." This is the oldest and most stupid. Which is based primarily on one fact: the plot was organized by the left using a person's right politically as Antonio Di Pietro. And while this is sganasciarsi laughter. But since no one remembers him, we remember how things went very quickly. Mario Chiesa was arrested for a bribe of 50 million (caught in act, there is no discussion on the offense). In the First Republic, to ensure that the investigating magistrates enterprising politicians, the "case" had created a strange and curious habit: if some political background ended up in trouble with the law, in no time the prosecutor of Rome, "accidentally" , discovered that the same political suspect had committed another crime related to the first discovered from another attorney, but more serious, committed in Rome. Consequently, the prosecutor of Rome holds sole to the survey (technical term to indicate that the investigation was continuing the prosecutor of Rome, as this is required by law), but because of too much work, the process inevitably ended up being forgotten in some cabinet and was barred. Even with the Church, coincidentally, the same thing happened. But Di Pietro appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that in this case the offense for which Rome had not investigated his relationship with and that he was to continue the investigation in Milan. The Supreme Court examined the appeal and gave reason to Di Pietro. Attention to this point, because it is a very underrated. The fact that Di Pietro won the appeal was interpretatio entrepreneurs (at the time we speak of those in Milan) that did not have protection from politicians who paid. And then from that moment began to queue outside the offices of Di Pietro to confess their misdeeds providing - you throw me the expression - the string with which to hang the political class.
- The speech in the House of Craxi: This is another hoax to refute. That is what is intended Craxi author of a speech to the House of great political sense and unity. In fact, if someone would deign to listen to strut before talking nonsense, you realize that the gist of his speech in the House is completely different. It 'something that is halfway between a blackmail and a call for help. In practice, Craxi said: "Given that more or less we are all criminals, let's make a law to block the activity of the judiciary", implying, "You do not want to put me to tell everything I know about you, true ?. But the climate was not suitable at that time, so the policy was afraid of the revolt of the citizens.
- "The judges never investigated those on the left": another huge lie. Just remember not the investigations, but the first sentence of Greganti, known as "Comrade G", just for crimes of this kind. And to be investigated was more or less all estabilishment of PCI, but they could not order and was not bad faith. Let me explain. We have had dozens of people who were told by Craxi or other politicians of the time and paid to them or the party secretaries and other leaders. But nobody ever said: "I went from Occhetto and I paid this sum." If you make this in mind, the answer is: "Well, of course, they used the red co. Then look at what must have been the practice at the time. I am an entrepreneur who wanted to do something in an area led by the left, according to the vulgate town, I had to give up a share of sub-contracts to the cooperatives red, then the PCI finanziabvano (I am referring to the period before 1994). The point is that nobody has been able to demonstrate the need for such a path. I'm not saying that is not true, but before a court is not enough to vox populi. We need evidence. If anyone presents, the matter is closed, from a legal standpoint.
- "Peter is a thug like everyone else" and here, too, we have a statement, repudiated by facts. Antonio Di Pietro has been investigated by the Public Prosecutor of Brescia and more than 20 times against him have been set up at least fifty criminal charges. But they were so fake that whenever you come before a court, he has always been right. The allegations of Gorrini of 1995 (giving him a; Mercedes and 300 million pounds because they do not investigate him) have proved false, and indeed it is proved that a person Gorrini was economically bankrupt, fed up with problems , which was on sale for more or less say anything. And so on for all other charges. The newspaper, which has always distinguished itself in its press campaign against the former PM, every time it was called in this Court, was defeated and sentenced to pay large sums of money, has not decided when - as in 1997 - to agree to pay compensation by way of settlement, in exchange for the withdrawal of the lawsuit. In the example I did in 1997, the Journal paid 400 million pounds and felt he was forced to resign after writing a long letter in which he admitted he had written only bales against Di Pietro. And so on for all the other allegations that were made.
- "Craxi died in exile." Craxi died in exile, but in hiding. In 1994, to avoid a possible arrest warrant, since there was almost total certainty that it would not be reelected, Craxi fled to Italy, as a coward any and took refuge in his villa in Hammamet, Tunisia protected by the dictator who had done various favors Craxi with the money of the Italian State. Since then, three convictions, for a total of 10 years in prison, have become final, and another ten processes have been interrupted in the first or second grade when the news came of his death. If Craxi had the balls to face the consequences of what he had done, he would have spent a lot 'of time in jail. So this is to be at large, neither more nor less than a mafia boss who occasionally reads that are arrested abroad.
I am limited to examining only the data that are most frequently used to speak of the innocence of Craxi. Innocence that is only in the words of the ignorant and those who are in bad faith. In short, it is good for people who never listen.
0 comments:
Post a Comment