”Gattopardismo” indicates the change of everything so that nothing changes. The writer Tomasi di Lampedusa coined the idea with reference to the Sicilian barons, who were suddenly Garibaldi-followers and Savoy-supporters after having been firm supporters of the Bourbons, basically unchangeable in managing their interests. 150 years later, “gattopardismo” has become the normal practice of government and opposition, the one penetrated by the other. In fact the Opposition is born by means of continual parthenogenesis of those who govern the country.
The Berlusconi government of the first five year period after 2000 included Fini and Casini, to whom we owe the active participation in all the filthy laws, from the electoral law to the Schifani law (the ancestor of the Lodo Alfano). Today, Casini and Fini suddenly are representing the Opposition, with a piked dive with double twist, they have become the alternative. The powers that are supporting them are the same that have had banquets and that will have banquets with Berlusconi. In this way, there is the demonstration of the evangelical miracle of the multiplication of the Government to the Opposition. Instead of fish, deputies. At the next elections, it’ll be possible to vote for the big list that’s “unico e bino” {unique and double}. On the one side, Berlusconi and Bossi, on the other side Casini, Fini and Bersani (D’Alema’s spokesperson). The current election law rewards the coalitions and so as not to end up like Bertinotti and carve out for themselves some zone of power, even marginal, it’s probable that many parties and tiny parties will “go to Canossa”, for the good of the country of course!
It’s a game in which the bank always wins and the Italians always lose. A bit of puppet theatre with academic insults in which the word used most frequently among them (used by citizens) is: "Vergogna”, {shame} but in which no one is ever ashamed of receiving public financing, of earning the right to a pension after two and a half years, of privatising the essential services and public property, of creating the TAV {high speed train line} and the “Dal Molin” American base, the biggest base in Europe. Or to tolerate Dell’Utri in parliament (comforted by Casini as president of the Lower House since the time of his first conviction for being close to the mafia) and Cuffaro and taking the Italians to the point of exasperation. Or of being seated in the benches of the Lower or Upper House “appointed” by their party bosses and not by the voters given the absence of direct voting for candidates. The parties are all the same. They are in reality all the same job lot of government with the same objectives.
Bersani declared this with a slip of the tongue, between the privatisation of water and the inauguration of an incinerator: “We are parties of the government, temporarily in Opposition”. The same is true for the Lega and for Fini. They too are government parties that every so often are in Opposition. It’s the gang bang of the leopards.

Text:

Good day to you all. Today we’re back live after the holidays and I hope that they went well for all of you.
We are once again discussing current events and, in particular, talking about the incumbents in the second and third most important government posts. Let’s leave the incumbent in the fourth most important post, namely the “Cavaliere”, aside for a moment because it is interesting to see the latest things that have emerged regarding the President of the Senate and the President of the Chamber in this month that we haven’t spoken live, and the repercussions that these latest events involving these two presidents have had on public opinion. What has emerged, how serious is it and how much do we really know? There is a total media imbalance regarding the incumbent in the second highest post, namely Schifani, and the one in the third highest post, namely Fini.

The Fini “issue”
At the end of July, Fini was essentially shown the door by the very party that he co-founded together with Berlusconi and he was basically thrown after he was reported to the “honest men” of the PDL – yes, if can you believe it, it seems that even the PDL has managed to find some “honest men” within the party, although heaven alone knows where they dug them out from – these “honest men” that have lain dormant for so many years. After all, up to now there hasn’t really been any reason to involve these “honest men”. The only matters that have come up are those involving Dell'Utri, Verdini, Cosentino, Brancher and Berlusconi, so what use are the “honest men”?
Instead, the moment that Fini had the gall to mention the word “justice” and Granata the word “anti-mafia”, they were summarily thrown out because the use of certain words is strictly prohibited and it’s simply not on for anyone to use such vulgar and inappropriate language. So, because of their justice and anti-mafia excesses, Fini and his closet aides, namely Granata, Briguglio and Bocchino, were shown the door. And thus came the split because numerous parliamentarians, far more of them than Berlusconi ever expected, chose to follow Fini. They number more than thirty in the Chamber, plus another ten or so in the Senate, just enough to cause the PDL to lose its absolute majority at Montecitorio and perhaps at Palazzo Madama too, if another couple of Senators should decide to follow suit.
Berlusconi, who as we know is surrounded by a bunch of slaves, had been assured by these slaves who never tell the truth but only say what he wants to hear, that there were only a few lonely diehards that Fini could count on and so they could all be tossed out without any problems. In reality, there were some 44 diehards and so he essentially found himself with a majority that was at risk, although he is now attempting to buy in someone else in his typical Arcore-style purchasing spree.
At that moment, Fini became the man of the hour. He became the main headline, day after day, in all of Berlusconi’s newspapers and those of his henchmen, namely the usual “Il Foglio”, “Il Giornale”, “Panorama” and, of course, “Libero”, which is in any event merely a photocopy or clone of “Il Giornale”, as well as on the television news broadcasts of the Mediaset network and the TG1, run by his valiant servant Minzolingua, who lovingly followed the affair of Fini and his family in perfect symphony with the company’s house organs.
And so, for the entire summer, virtually every Italian has heard all about the scandal involving Fini on at least one occasion. But what is this scandal? The scandal is as follows, very briefly: Fini is living with his latest companion, namely Elisabetta Tulliani, who was formerly engaged to Luciano Gaucci. Ms. Tulliani has a brother who is, therefore, to all intents and purposes Fini’s brother-in-law and who, through a company owned by Tulliani’s mother, also did some work for RAI and, above all, rents a 65 square metre apartment in Monte Carlo at an undisclosed monthly rental fee.
Now this apartment lies at the very centre of the so-called Fini affair of the summer because, a dozen or so years ago, this apartment was left to the AN party, in other words to Fini, in the last will and testament of a noblewoman, namely Countess Anna Maria Colleoni, a descendant of Bartolomeo Colleoni, the military leader who, as legend would have it, had three balls and not two like us mere mortals. Anyway, this lady left various properties to the AN, Fini’s Party, including this mini apartment in Monte Carlo.
At that time, the apartment was valued by experts at 400-450 million Italian Lire, also taking into account its somewhat obvious state of decay. This was some twelve-odd years ago, after which the apartment remained unproductive and unprofitable for a number of years until, I’m not sure whether it was two or three years ago, the leaders of the AN decided to sell the apartment to a foreign company based on Santa Lucia Island in the Caribbean. This company paid 300, Euro for the apartment, equivalent to around 600 million Italian Lire, far more than its assessed value at the time. This company then proceeded to sell the apartment on to another, let’s say sister company, also based on Santa Lucia Island, which in turn, as we discovered during this past summer, let the apartment to Giancarlo Tulliani, Fini’s almost brother-in-law.
The story immediately became newsworthy due to the suspicion that Fini hijacked this apartment, at a very favourable price, into the hands of his brother-in-law.
Fini then issued a press release, in which he claimed that he knew that the apartment had indeed been sold, but was totally unaware that the new owners had let it out to his brother-in-law. At which point “Il Giornale”, “Libero”, “Panorama” and the whole bang-shoot went mad trying to dispute Fini’s version of events although, I must say, to date they have not succeeded in doing so. Can you believe that they even tried to prove their case by spinning some yarn about some or other 4500 Euro Scavolini kitchen set that Fini and Ms. Tulliani bought from a furniture store on the outskirts of Rome, on the “Aurelia” road, not exactly a VIP type of place and a not exactly a VIP kitchen, at 4500 Euro.
A kitchen that, at least according to a superwitness dug up by some ardent followers of “Il Giornale”, namely a designer that worked at the furniture store and his wife, was supposedly destined for Monte Carlo. This was proudly paraded as proof of the fact that, if Fini really did buy the kitchen for Tulliani’s Monte Carlo apartment, then he must have been fully aware of the fact that Tulliani was renting the apartment and this would be sufficient to prove, not that Fini had stolen anything, but that he had at the very least lied and that he had indeed favoured his almost brother-in-law in some way.
Fini’s response was that the kitchen set was not in Monte Carlo, but was fitted in a house in Rome, thus passing the buck back to “Il Giornale” and “Libero” to prove that this was not the case, which they have been unable to do. On the contrary, their superwitness suddenly began to stammer, saying that he wasn’t certain and that there is no paper trail that proves that the kitchen set was in fact shipped to Monte Carlo. In any event, it is highly unlikely that anyone wanting to furnish an apartment in Monte Carlo would purchase kitchen unit in Rome and then pay out a fortune in shipping costs. Should someone need to furnish a place in Monte Carlo, surely they would buy the furniture in Monte Carlo or thereabouts, so this whole story sounds a little fishy at best. Anyway, no apparent link emerged between the kitchen set and Monte Carlo. Indeed, something rather suspicious then came to light as regards the so-called superwitness. The superwitness himself, this designer, claims that he has resigned from his job at the furniture store, thereby chucking two jobs and two salaries, his and his wife’s in one fell swoop, so that he could finally tell the whole truth about Fini, which they then claim not to know, but merely suspect because of hearsay that the kitchen set was destined to be shipped to Monte Carlo. Now either we are dealing with a hero, a fearless man, a martyr that is prepared to give up his job and his salary in the interests of the truth, or we have to assume that he is but one of many superwitnesses that have come to our attention in recent years and that are later proven to be slanderers that are prepared to lie in their own interests. And we all know that the Prime Minister’s empire has no problem with seeing someone right after they have done their rightful duty to the empire. Whatever the truth may be, in this case we still don’t know what’s behind the whole episode, but what we do know is that there is no proof that the kitchen set in question was ever shipped to Monte Carlo. On the contrary, it would be a good thing if, when he returns from his holiday, Fini were to throw open the door of the house in which the kitchen set was fitted, so as to once and for all silence the newspapers that have spent the entire summer attacking him, assuming of course that he is in a position to do so.
The fact remains, however, that Fini still needs to give a full explanation because, while he only revealed certain facts in his statement to the press, claiming that that was all he knew at the time, hopefully he will now grab Mr. Tulliani by the scruff of the neck and force him to tell the whole truth regarding this matter. Should it emerge that Tulliani did indeed receive any favours from the AN coffers, thereby prejudicing the party, Fini must then make him pay over some money as compensation to the party since it would appear that Mr. Tulliani has no lack of funds, given the fact that he has been photographed standing next to a Ferrari.
So this is what the Fini scandal is all about. Obviously this matter doesn’t involve even one penny of public funds so, at when all is said and done, who really gives a damn anyway. If this were Scandinavia, perhaps we could resort to doing some needlework or lacework or, in other words, go looking for the needle in a haystack, because that is indeed what this amounts to, namely the sale of a private asset by a private organisation. Unfortunately the political parties are not corporate entities whose accounts books are open to scrutiny in order to ascertain how their public funding is managed. In this case, the party sold an asset to other privately owned companies, so there is no mention of public funds, unlike the scandals involving the banks and the bribes, where public funds were indeed involved. This case is also very different from the Scajola case, to which Feltri has attempted in vain to compare the Fini-Tulliani case. The Scajola case involves a Minister who got his 250 square metre, 900,000 Euro house in front of the Coliseum paid for a builder named Anemone who then, for no apparent rhyme or reason, started winning government tender after government tender for the Department of Civil Defence and the Ministry of Internal Affairs so, you bet this involves public funds! In this saga of the Monte Carlo apartment that was eventually rented out to Tulliani, however, there is not a single penny of public money involved. But Fini owes us a full explanation in any event because we want to know whether he is or has ever been dominated by this bully called Tulliani and on what basis this party asset was disposed of. If indeed, as he says, he has nothing to hide, he will obviously have no problem with making a full disclosure of what happened and then distance himself from this far too entrepreneurial young gentleman that has evidently made good use of Fini’s name on more than one occasion, benefiting from the fact that Fini chose to get engaged to Tulliani’s sister, even though, when all is said and done, the booty was no great shakes, namely a run-down little apartment in Monte Carlo and a one-time late night gig on RAI2. I mean, given the way things are going at RAI in any event, this really is tantamount to looking for a needle in the haystack. Nevertheless, all the questions need to be answered, particularly if, as Fini claims, he has nothing to fear.
So that is what emerged with regard to the incumbent in the third highest government post, namely Senate President Gianfranco Fini. One of these days I’m going to sit down and count the number of newspaper headlines in “Libero” and “Il Giornale”, and how many news headlines on the public and private broadcasters’ channels were dedicated to this very serious cock-and-bull story of the kitchen set and the Monte Carlo apartment. Not to mention the public lynching suffered by Elisabetta Tulliani, whose alleged crime is as yet unknown, except for the fact that she is living with Gianfranco Fini, whose greatest crime was that he challenged Berlusconi. If Fini had not challenged Berlusconi and had chosen to remain under the protective umbrella, by now he could just as well go out and rob a bank and rape underage girls and no one would dare to write even a single word about his escapades, about Fini being a robber and a rapist. If anything, there would be a number of polished editorials by Feltri and Belpietro, explaining precisely why raping underage girls and robbing banks it is a completely just and good thing.

Schifani and the “Cavaliere’s” umbrella
Now let’s take a look at what happens to someone who remains under the “Cavaliere’s” protective umbrella, for example the incumbent holding the second highest government post in the land, namely Renato Schifani. We have spoken at length and on numerous occasions about Renato Schifani. You are aware of what had emerged until a month and a half ago, also because I went to discuss the matter with Fabio Fazio two years ago, after Gomez and Lirio Abbate mentioned it in their book entitled “I Complici” (The Accomplices), after Marco Lillo wrote about it in “L'Espresso” and after we were told that the matter was not at all serious, that there would be nothing more to discover as regards Schifani and so we should stop talking about Schifani.
You will undoubtedly remember the vitriolic attack launched against me by the deputy editor of Repubblica who, while I was talking about Schifani, claimed that I was the problem because of certain allegations that I go on holiday at the Mafia’s expense, and I was obliged to provide documentary proof that I had in fact paid for my own holidays and that I had never even known any Mafia members in my entire life. Anyway, never mind Schifani’s previous exploits. We know him only too well.
But is there something new? Well, yes, there is. There are at least four new issues that have emerged thanks to Italy’s only two remaining free newspapers that are free to talk about the second most senior member of the government even though he is under the Cavaliere’s protective umbrella, one of these is “Il Fatto Quotidiano” and the other is “L'Espresso”.
Thanks to Marco Lillo, in August “Il Fatto Quotidiano” has managed to uncover three major and rather serious facts.
The first of these is that, in addition to what we already knew about him, Schifani’s pedigree also includes the fact that he was placed under investigation for mafia collusion by the Palermo Public Prosecution on no less than three occasions, but each time he had the case archived by the Preliminary Investigations Magistrate due to the expiry of the investigation deadline. But what is archiving in any event? It certainly isn’t absolution, because absolution means that either the individual is innocent of the alleged offences or that there is insufficient proof of guilt. In other words, that we have been through the entire process and done all the work, including the investigation, the trial, the debate and we have ascertained that the individual is not guilty. Archiving, instead, is a totally different matter. A crime is reported, the individual suspected of having committed the crime is listed as a suspect, placed under investigation, however, if the investigations have not been completed by the time the investigation deadline expires and there aren’t sufficient grounds for a conviction, then the judge is asked to archive the case. File the case away in the archives and issue an archiving ruling, that’s it. Should any further evidence come to light at some future time, that investigation can be re-opened while, if someone is found not guilty by reason of that same evidence, he/she cannot be investigated or put on trial again for that same offence. In Latin, this principle is known as “ne bis in idem”. This is a very important distinction. An archived case can be re-opened at any time, while absolution is final and irrevocable.
Schifani was placed under investigation, then the case was archived, then he was again placed under investigation, then the case was again archived, then he was yet again placed under investigation before the case was archived yet again, this because during the Nineties and the early 2000’s new facts emerged that led the investigators to believe that he was colluding with the Cosa Nostra. Then, apparently, there facts were never enough to warrant his remand for trial, so the case remains archived to this day.
The first time he was placed under investigation was back in 1996 when Caselli was Public Prosecutor of Palermo. Engineer Salvatore Lanzalacco had decided to spill the beans. He was a professional engineer from Palermo who dealt with public tenders and was in contact with Angelo Siino, the tender king, the representative of the Mafia and the local companies when it came to sharing out tender contracts. As I’m sure you already know, in Sicily the businessmen don’t only have to give kickbacks to the politicians but also to the Mafia in the form of sub-contracts granted to companies favoured by the Cosa Nostra. Lanzalacco spilled the beans with regard to the contract for converting the entire Palermo municipal district to run on Methane gas, a contract worth 140 billion Italian Lire that was awarded to a temporary consortium of companies led by the Saipem Company of Milan, which I think was part of the Eni Group. According to Lanzalaco, that tender was hijacked by sheer force of bribes, with 1.5 percent of the figure going to the Mafia and one of its partners. Lanzalaco also states that he went to Parma to speak to the businessmen of the Bonatti Company regarding the sharing-out of the works that were to be sub-contracted out to certain mafia or mafia-linked companies.
So what happened next, you ask? What happened is that, according to Lanzalaco, he was accompanied on these missions to the North to discuss this contract by none other than “Attorney Schifani”, who was working as a consultant for the Palermo Municipal Administration at that time, and that, still according to Lanzalaco, “Schifani was fully aware of all the illegal tender activities and I believe that he was well connected as one of the Palermo Municipality’s consultants”. So Schifani was placed under investigation on 13 March 1996, suspected of having colluded with the Mafia. In March 1998, in other words two years later, the investigation deadline empire and the case was archived because the Financial Police’s GICO Unit (Organised Crime Investigation Unit) had not yet submitted the final report that the Prosecution had commissioned in order to confirm Lanzalaco’s allegations.
The report was finally submitted after the case had already been archived and, on the basis of this report the Prosecution decided to place Schifani under investigation once again because the report contained further proof of his criminal involvement. In other words, it was discovered that the earthmoving sub-contracts were awarded to certain companies headed up by the Boss Cancemi’s cousin who later became a turncoat, namely Vincenzo Cancemi, and to a company belonging to Vito Buscemi, who was later arrested and placed in precautionary incarceration for his involvement in mafia activities. Inter alia, Buscemi lived in a building in Via D'Amelio that was built by a co-operative in which both Buscemi and Schifani had been partners for a time before becoming residents in the building, which also happens to be situated in the same street where the bomb that killed Paolo Borsellino exploded.
The Financial Police then proceeded to check whether Schifani had done any travelling during that period when there was all this to-ing and fro-ing between Palermo and Parma, only to discover that not only were there indeed a number of flights made between Palermo and Bologna on the dates indicated by Lanzalaco, but that Schifani’s name also appeared on the passenger lists for these flights.
Nevertheless, in 1999, believing that these facts did not constitute sufficient grounds on which to remand Schifani for trial, the Palermo Prosecution once again requested that the case be archived, and so it came about that Schifani’s case was archived once again. However, soon thereafter, he was again placed under investigation because more clues were uncovered, not only regarding his alleged mafia collusion, but also regarding further crimes, including association in corruption, collusion, abuse of power, according to the Prosecution “regarding the acquisition of funding decrees and undue influencing of the tender process relating to the tender contracts for the conversion of the town of Palermo to run on Methane gas and, in particolar, the agreements made with the Cosa Nostra with regard to the awarding of the contracts to a temporary consortium of companies linked to the mafia and the subsequent financial agreements for the awarding of authorised works to companies linked directly to the Cosa Nostra”.

Schifani and the Graviano brothers
Another couple of years of investigations followed, after which a number of those suspected together with Schifani were then arrested on charges of aggravated bankruptcy and favouring the Mafia, while the bulk of the case against Schifani was once again archived due to a lack of the necessary evidence to prove the main charges and remand him for trial..
The Magistrates wrote that: “all things considered and based on the statements of the justice collaborators and the confirmation activities conducted, the GICO Unit was unable to prove Schifani’s personal interests and behaviour beyond reasonable doubt – whose name was only mentioned by Lanzalaco as someone who, as part of a group of people in Parma, is alleged to have drafted the business contracts related to the tender contracts – and as such, the case must be archived”. On 2 March 2002, the Preliminary Investigations Magistrate archived Schifani’s case a, in the meantime, he had become the Senate Group Leader of Forza Italia.
So what happened next, you ask? Well, yet another two facts, one of which was uncovered by Marco Lillo for ”Il Fatto Quotidiano” and the other by Lirio Abbate for “L'Espresso”, namely two turncoats that spilled the beans to the Palermo Prosecution and once again dragged Schifani’s name into it while the Prosecution was busy investigating the statements made by Spatuzza, who claimed that he had once seen Schifani in a factory building used by the Gravianos.
Campanella was the first of these turncoats to spill the beans to the Magistrates and he stated that, when Schifani laid charges against him because he had accused Schifani of having sorted out the Villabate Town Planning Scheme to suit the interests of the clan headed up by Nino Mandalà, the mafia leader from Villabate who had known Schifani from the Seventies when they were partners in the Sicula Broker, Campanella said that Schifani had lied when he laid the charges in that he minimised his role in tampering with the Villabate Town Planning Scheme while, instead, he had interfered with a number of variations that (he claims) had been suggested or were of definite interest to the Mandalà Clan.
The Mayor of Villabate, for which Schifani worked as town planning consultant, was also a big shot in the Mandalà clan, namely the famous Mayor Navetta.
Obviously the Villabate Town Council was dissolved on two separate occasions due to links with the mafia, because of Navetta’s vested interests as Mandaltà’s spokesman. But why did Campanella choose to spill the beans? Well, because the man in question was a politician with the Udeur Party, as well as a former Christian Democrat and was working as President of the Villabate Town Council, not a mafia hoodlum who went around shooting people, a white-collar mafia member who dealt with matters relating to making money and swinging the politics in the Mafia’s favour, but today he is a turncoat and tells of how there were a number of deals involving properties and plots of land in the old town centre that Schifani somehow arranged in Madalà’s interests, or so Campanella claims.
Obviously all of these allegations remain to be proven and all we know for sure is that Schifani worked as a consultant for that somewhat shady municipal administration until he was elected as Senator in April of 1996.
Now for the other bit of news, namely the latest revelations made by Spatuzza. By way of this week’s edition of “L’Espresso” Lirio Abate reveals that Spatuzza was questioned last year by the anti-mafia Prosecution of Florence, by the same Public Prosecutors that are busy investigating the 1993 murders in Milan, Florence and Rome, and he stated that, in the early nineties, Schifani was responsible for putting Berlusconi and Dell'Utri in touch with the Graviano brothers. And what makes his claims somewhat believable is the fact that we know that, in the late Eighties, Schifani had already had some contact with Dell’Utri, well before the birth of Forza Italia, and this is confirmed by “L’Espresso”, which quotes a number of reliable sources. During that period, he made numerous trips between Palermo and Milan. Abbate writes that this same source reveals that Schifani was known as Berlusconi’s “accountant”. At that time, he was an attorney specialising in urban planning matters and his clients included people such as Giovanni Bontade, brother of Boss Stefano Bontade who, as everyone is aware and according to the Palermo judges, was very closely linked to Dell'Utri and Berlusconi and it was he who virtually gave his blessing for Vittorio Mangano’s engagement to work at the villa in Arcore. Furthermore, this Giovanni Bontade, brother of the Boss of all Bosses, was also later convicted on drug trafficking charges during the maxi-trial and was then assassinated in 1988, together with his wife.
Schifani’s other clients include Domenico Federico, who was a partner of Bontade and another Boss and businessman by the name of Ludovico Visconti. Lirio Abbate writes about this so as to make it clear that Bontade mafia clan has always been considered to be a possible source of funding for the Berlusconi group during the Seventies when, as even Massimo Ciancimino claims, the Mafia was investing in various businesses, including construction companies and television broadcasting companies.
That period, therefore, was the time when this link between Schifani and Dell’Utri was established, which, according to Spatuzza, later resulted in Schifani becoming a kind of kingpin between the Graviano clan and Dell'Utri and Berlusconi. This was the period, namely 1993 when, as we know, the Gravianos assumed direct responsibility for the massacres, which, according to the magistrates and numerous turncoats, were aimed at speeding up and driving the birth of this new political party that Dell'Utri in fact invented and convinced Berlusconi to establish sometime between 1993 and 1994.
These allegations, like those of Campanella, remain to be proven. Although Spatuzza is a mafia member turned turncoat and is now collaborating with the legal authorities, you do realise I’m sure that, having started and archived this investigation involving Schifani and allegations of Mafia collusion on three separate occasions, now, as a result of “Il Fatto Quotidiano’s” revelations that have not been picked up by any of the other members of the media, the magistrates will now probably be obliged to re-open the case yet again. This because, as I said earlier, once a case has been archived and new evidence comes to light, the investigations start again. Lirio Abbate writes that the case will indeed be re-opened in September, any day now in other words, . The Palermo Prosecutors will question Spatuzza and will probably question Campanella again, as well as anyone else that has mentioned Schifani’s name at any stage, in order to find out whether there is anything concrete and still currently documentable dating back to before the time that Schifani got into Parliament, in other words prior to 1996, or perhaps something even more recent.

Schifani and the Mafia Building
The fourth and final revelation regarding Schifani is made by Marco Lillo in “Il Fatto Quotidiano”, namely that amongst all of Schifani’s clients was a man by the name of Lo Sicco, a builder who was also arrested for mafia activities, convicted and finally sentenced back in 2008. A man who had built that huge monstrosity of a building in piazza Leoni in Palermo, just a short walk from the Favorita Gardens. In that building lived the crème de la crème of Mafia members, some of whom were even in hiding for a certain period of time.
That building affected and indeed undermined the stability of a little house inhabited by two elderly sisters, namely the Pilliu sisters. Everyone in Palermo knows these sisters because they were amongst the last few people to speak to Paolo Borsellino since, already in 1992, they had complained about the flagrant arrogance of this mafia builder that was putting up this huge building virtually on top of their little house , which was causing their walls to crack because of the building works that were going on next door.
Yet for 18 or maybe 20 years they fought in vain and were never able to prove their case. Those with influence, namely the mafia builder and his mafia tenants, were being represented by Renato Schifani and this was a force to be reckoned with, so much so, in fact, that these poor elderly sisters believed that they had no hope of winning. But this past summer, on 21 July, the Palermo Appeal Court confirmed the initial ruling handed down at the trial court 8 long years ago and ordered that at least part of that the mafia builder’s huge building must be torn down so as to leave a two and half metre gap to provide some air between the building and the Pilliu sisters’ house and to prevent any destabilisation of the house. A house that has in any event already been destroyed and has to be repaired at the State’s expense because the State failed to protect these two sisters against the arrogance of the mafia builder and his buddies, whose defence attorney was none other than our current President of the Senate.
This is one of only a handful of cases with a happy ending that we have been able to dig up. The Italian people know nothing about this matter because, while we know all about the Scavolini kitchen, the Monte Carlo apartment, Tulliani’s Ferrari, the winning Superenalotto lottery ticket held by either Ms. Tulliani or Gaucci and the family feud between Gaucci and Ms. Tulliani, we know nothing about this story that involves the man in the second most senior government post in this Country. Why is this? Why has no other newspaper other than “L’Espresso” and “Il Fatto Quotidiano” dedicated one single line to this matter?
When “L'Espresso” launched an early scoop, the only daily other than “Il Fatto Quotidiano” to even mention the case was “La Repubblica”, which relegated its report to a little article on page 25, making it virtually invisible in any event.
The day after, Schifani said: “I am disgusted at these latest insinuations, but I’m ready to answer any questions that the magistrates may want to ask me in order to clear up this entire matter”, and this is a very important statement. The President of the Senate stating that he is willing to be questioned as soon as possible by the Palermo anti-mafia magistrates who are busy investigating his possible links to the mafia. That’s precisely what we’re talking about. These magistrates are busy investigating charges of mafia collusion against the President of the Senate and he issues an official statement in which he claims that he wants to be heard, this is a good thing! If only he were to say “I want to be heard” and the newspapers fail to write a word about it, all the newspapers other than ours won’t put it on the front page, but why? Well because the same people that censored Spatuzza and Campanella’s accusations, those who refused to publish the fact that Schifani has been under investigation for mafia collusion on three separate occasions and has had his case archived three times can certainly not now go ahead and print Schifani’s response because anyone reading that response could well say: “but why on earth would Schifani want to be questioned with regard to mafia activities?” Has someone omitted to tell us that he has been accused of mafia activities? If you choose to censor the initial news item then you are also obliged to censor the response, censorship leads to more censorship, so, while on the one hand all the Italians know about the splinter in Fini’s eye, or that of his brother-in-law, no one is aware of the tree trunk in President of the Senate’s eye. What’s the difference between Fini and Schifani, you ask? They are both centre-right politicians and one has hair while the other does not, having eve lost the few strands he used to have. The only real difference is that one of the two has distanced himself from the “Cavaliere’s protective umbrella after which they immediately started taking pot-shots at him and, when they were unable to find anything concrete with which to hit him, they came up with some pretext splinter in the eye.
On the other hand you have a man with such major tree-trunks in his eye, issues that require some explanation, and I’m not saying that they are necessarily true, but they at least require some explanation, yet no one is saying anything and no one knows about the issues, simply because he has remained in the king’s court and has no intention of leaving the court, especially having seen what happened to the man that left the court this past summer.

When all is said and done, this is a prime example of conflict of interests at play, as well as the best possible explanation of why no one from either left or the right wing has ever tried to resolve the problem.
Have a good week and spread the word.

Yesterday I was walking along the beach among the people. Some recognised me and asked me a question that is the same as ever: “What will happen to Italy? How will we come through? What’s to be done?” Sometimes a dialogue got started, a conversation and slowly but surely other people started to listen. It seemed like being on a soap box at Hyde Park corner in London, where anyone can stand up on a box and spout at the passers-by. I was in the sand dunes rather than in a public park. The diagnosis of Italy’s ills was almost always the one shared: the occupation of the State by the parties, the decline of education, of research, the deindustrialisation, the loss of moral values, the ramshackle organisation we are living in slowly running aground on a sandbank of indifference. A few shouted out: "Forza Grillo!", "Sei l'unica speranza rimasta, Grillo!" {Go for it Grillo! “You are the only hope left, Grillo!”} The more I listened to them the more I got worried. I had the uncomfortable sensation of an “Armiamoci e parti” {Let’s get armed and you go!} (me on my own)” And I started to ask them how they would have changed things. The responses were always in the conditional: “I would do, I would say, I would plan ….” When I asked why it was not “You are doing, you are saying, you are planning now” and a passage to the present indicative, the faces changed their expression, the eyes becoming more hazy and what emerged was a slight irritation, as though to tell me off for having committed a discourtesy. The wife of a hospital doctor explained that her husband cannot put himself against the system. They would destroy him. A state employee said the same thing, as did a sales assistant in a big shop and a local police officer. They don’t want to run the risk of losing the little (or the lot) that they have. And this nails them to the wall like a pin and a butterfly. I understand them. But as long as the majority of the Italians think like that, there will not be radical change. Individual responsibility stops in front of one’s own well-being. But without individual responsibility, without the courage to make a denunciation, to stand up to be counted, there is not a plan for society. The Italians hear the noise of the rushing water, they know they are in a boat full of holes, but until they fall down the rapids, many will stay there watching.
Leo Longanesi said that the Italians run to help the winner, but with what we can expect, social and economic default, there will be no winners, only losers. Who will we rush to help?
A prisoner inside this thought, I looked at the sea, towards Corsica, and I don’t know why, I thought of Newton, who has nothing to do with Italy’s future: "to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me". Our future is still all to be written.
They will never give up (but is it in their interests?). Neither will we.

If, as don Gallo says, all Mondadori’s authors, especially the so-called opposition writers that number in their tens if not in their hundreds, were to walk out on the publisher, it would send a very strong message to the Country as a whole. By not doing so, these same tens or even hundreds of writers are also sending a very clear message to the Country as a whole, namely that not only are they not an alternative to berlusconianism, but indeed they are in it up to their necks.

Interview with don Andrea Gallo:

Blog: "The recent regulation inserted in one of the Berlusconi Government’s decrees (Decree number 40), which then became law last May, would enable Mondadori to settle an outstanding tax evasion bill amounting to some 350 million Euro by paying over a mere 8.6 million Euro. Now that sounds pretty much like a pardon.
Scalfari responded to Mancuso, an author who writes for Mondadori and is seriously in two minds as to whether or not he should continue to write for the Segrate publishing house, saying that he would continue to write for Einaudi, one of the Mondadori group publishers. "

Don Gallo: "I have begun to realise that what we are facing is a form of degeneration. To see our intelligenzia behaving in this manner … I must say that I am grateful to Mondadori for having published three of my books, but when I read the whole story regarding this dispute with the Department of Inland Revenue, I said to myself: enough is enough, no more! Then, immediately, a thought came to mind, namely that Beppe Grillo had warned me about this back in 2004, shouting it out in a friendly manner. I have said enough is enough because I simply cannot be party to tax evasion on this scale.
Furthermore, I am deeply disappointed because these great authors could have sent out a very strong signal indeed. And I had made a comparison: when the fascist regime was consolidated, the “Duce” asked all the university lecturers (around 1200 of them at the time) to swear an oath of allegiance. Only ten of those lecturers failed to do so.
Just imagine what it would have meant for Italy and the Italians if these authors had left Mondadori “en masse”. It would have been like saying: beware, this regime is busy leading us to destruction. Instead, we once again carry on as if nothing had happened and become a bunch of nitpickers.
I, as small and insignificant as I am, want to say that, given such a major case of tax evasion, the Italians must be given the opportunity to reflect. Because, if all of this is going on just at a time when the workers’ pockets are being hit hard (between those laid-off temporarily and the unemployed), the world of culture must make some sort of contribution. In my own small way, I have decided to do so, above all after examining my conscience.
It is a fact that money cannot buy happiness. Certainly I am in no position to criticise anyone, but I think that yet another page of this sad reality is currently being written. Then there is the matter of the political parties. How have the so-called centre-left parties reacted to this issue?
I want to appeal to all the movements because only a groundswell movement will be able to have its say. To me it seems essential that there has to be some sort of acknowledgement from below, as well as total transparency, in order for us to organise ourselves and weed out this deep-seated problem. Only the groundswell movements can acknowledge the problem and attempt to do what has to be done. Like a common red thread emerging from numerous movements. I have followed the progress of a number of movements, from Beppe Grillo to Val di Susa, No-Dal Molin, the great Zanotelli in Campania regarding the issue of water and those that are fighting against the doubling-up of the coal-fired power station in Savona. All of these are groundswell movements that work from the bottom up.
I want to be very forthright now: while I have the greatest respect for individuals like Scalfari, Saviano and others, I am nevertheless extremely disappointed. Far be it from me to judge them, but they have certainly disappointed me. This is an appeal and not a judgement. On the contrary, as the minor author that I am, I would have expected to see an immediate reaction from such important authors as them. It would have been a great opportunity to reveal the full extent of the tax evasion problem. But I’m still waiting anxiously."

Blog: "What would you like to say to Scalfari say?"

Don Gallo: "That he is no longer my teacher. "

Blog: "Something you want to say to Saviano?"

Don Gallo: "I’m still waiting. It seems incredible to me … Scalfari has already made his decision, while Saviano has not said anything as yet. I have very high hopes because Saviano has given the youngsters a huge push by providing them with an understanding of this monster that is the Mafia, and of its links with the political parties. That’s why I say: “Come on Saviano, send a message to the youngsters."

They invited me to a public meeting with Berlusconi. I refused. I’m not happy to talk about the past, of advertising holograms of politics. After that I thought about it. I saw the usual headlines in the newspapers, the usual declarations of politicians pro and contra Berlusconi with not a scrap of idea about the future, about programmes, about analyses of problems. In the streets against Berlusconi. Let’s boycott Berlusconi, Berlusconi in prison. Berlusconi out of the government. Let Napolitano (the very person) intervene against Berlusconi. And then slowly but surely, every aspect of the sick society, from education, to research, to the environment, to pensions, blamed on a little 74-year old tarred man. I kept on thinking how long this puppet theatre has been going on for and who is winning in the “Great Berlusconian Alibi” in which we are living, obviously, apart from Berlusconi. The ones who are winning are the professionals of “antiberlusconism”. Politicians without an iota of an idea apart from that of being in Opposition against Berlusconi, who are nourished by the ones who are fighting. Without Berlusconi, they wouldn’t even exist. Many journalists, especially the ones that publish their books under Berlusconi’s “mondadorian” banner and who receive a salary even thanks to the public financing generously supplied by the Berlusconi government. The “beautiful-water philosophers” who in the past held Craxi in high esteem, who create one front after another to fight Berlusconism.
The parties, the media and the political proposal (always that: the banishing of the devil) are by now reduced to Berlusconi. His double, his clone with an opposite sign, exists as long as he exists. Berlusconi is the effect and not the cause of the crisis in which we are living, an all-round crisis: moral, social, ethical, economic, belonging to the nation. It’s easier to blame the crisis on a single person and it’s also more worthwhile in terms of elected positions and the wallet of the individual.
The antiberlusconian industry is cross-eyed by nature, it can clearly see the filthy stuff done by Berlusconi, but, for example, it doesn’t remember about De Benedetti and the destruction of Olivetti, one of his companies, and of the regional councils of the Opposition of which whole chunks were in prison. It attacks whoever it wants for the conflict of interests, but it considers it right and fitting that Scalfari, who has made it his battle horse to have a furious battle with no fear against the psycho-dwarf, is writing for a Berlusconi company and with the sales of his stuff (he too sells a bit) he is contributing to the wealth of the President of the Council. Political life has been reduced to factions, to “Guelfi and Ghibellini” who go together to the restaurant in the evening or who make courtesy telephone calls to each other. In the TV debates, the parts are assigned beforehand, berlusconians usually on the right and antiberlusconians on the left. The debate always has the same outcome: nothing.
With me or against me. On the Left or on the Right. No one accepts the responsibility of having made a mistake, of a proposal that was not made or that was forgotten, of a law that was a mistake. Berlusconi will pass and with him the full-time antiberlusconians. They will never give up (but is it in their interests?). Neither will we.