Chat of the judges against Salvini: offense and counteroffense


Imagine what firepower Silvio Berlusconi would have unleashed, in his golden days, if he had read interceptions of judges, including an “authoritative” member of the CSM, where it was said that “it is a piece of shit” and “should be attacked even if he’s right, ”just when he’s on trial. Or Renzi, another rather reactive leader. Even any leader of the left would have been seized with sincere indignation: even without talking about “clockwork justice”, he would have denounced that those pleasant talks undermine the image of the judiciary, undermining their credibility and trust.

It is therefore understandable that Salvini took pen and paper to write to Mattarella, also in a rather polite way, to express bewilderment and concern in relation to Palamara’s conversations. Just the spectacularization of the letter that could still be sent privately, and not through the agencies, however, reveals the move for what it is: a political move, intelligent from his point of view to turn the spotlight on the case and to make his own game but just a political move. The leader of the League is in fact the first to know that Mattarella may perhaps receive it out of courtesy, listen gracefully and patiently, but obviously more is not to be expected. Because, however inappropriate, those conversations do not have a subversive profile: they are opinions in the context of a private and confidential conversation, otherwise it would have been, so to speak, if someone had said “let’s send him a guarantee notice so he doesn’t speak” and if this intention had been followed by consequent facts. That is, if, in listening, a plot between political struggle and judicial action had been shown.

Here, all this is not there. And evidently Salvini is also perfectly aware of this. Otherwise, if he had identified a criminal profile he could have lodged a complaint or if he had identified a disciplinary profile he could have contacted the solicitor of the Cassation or the minister Bonafede. Instead he chose to turn to the head of state as part of a strategy, we will see in the next few days whether it will have the consistency of an offensive, all political: showing himself the victim of a theorem, unfairly persecuted for defending Italy and its borders, to be demolished, as the old Silvio said, by judicial means when the opponents fail through the political route.

In this sense, the interceptions lend themselves to putting wood in the fire of propaganda, even if everything is confused in the bonfire, even what is substantial and Salvini does not say: this is the absence of a link between opinions and facts, in the sense that the two who talk are not the same ones who investigate it, which is not an irrelevant detail. All this tells of a growing fear in view of the kidnapping process, which has been postponed due to the Coronavirus, but not too much since the first hearing has been scheduled for July 4th. And of an attempt, in a phase of decline in consensus, to bring the political clock back to before the Coronavirus, at the time of the great polarization on migrants in which Salvini reaped consensus shouting in the rallies “try me well because I defended the Italians from the invaders”, a line that also frightened his opponents, who have always been rather fearful of fighting him on his ground (and in fact the safety decrees are still in force, but this is another matter). That in Italy devastated by the pandemic and with the head elsewhere the effect may be the same it is legitimate to doubt. However: there is a kidnapping process on which he will go to trial, there are judges brand him as one who “is right but to be given”, revealing a prejudice. It is enough ground to fight politically. The trial, in courtrooms, is a completely different story.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here