Yes, Falcone worked for the state

Marco Travaglio’s far-fetched and unfounded defence of Sigfrido Ranucci is reaching and exceeding all bounds of logic (and of good taste – and has been doing so for some time). Even the presenter’s statement, in which he compared himself – albeit indirectly – to the martyrs of the Mafia and terrorism, from Moro to Piersanti Mattarella to Giovanni Falcone (victims of actual attacks), is praised by the editor-in-chief of Il Fatto Quotidiano. To the dismay of Falcone’s family and the, all things considered, measured comments of former magistrates such as Luciano Violante, Pietro Grasso and Giuseppe Ayala – who observed that ‘Falcone would not have dined with Lavitola’ – the ineffable Travaglio replied by quipping that Falcone would have done worse, given that ‘he worked solely with the Andreotti government’.

Everyone knows – including Travaglio, were he not a serial charlatan – that Falcone was Director of Criminal Affairs at the Ministry of Justice, and that in that role he promoted the establishment of the National Anti-Mafia Prosecutor’s Office; it was only because of the (tragically) prevailing factionalism hostile to him within the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM) that he was not appointed National Anti-Mafia Prosecutor. Falcone worked for the state and to strengthen and reorganise the state’s anti-Mafia efforts more efficiently, during the years when a government—certainly not made up of the ‘idolised figures’ of Travaglio and Ranucci—actually fought the Mafia. He paid for his commitment with the Capaci massacre. It must be said that Ranucci, whilst comparing himself to Falcone – aside from the bad taste involved – did, however, express admiration for the magistrate. Travaglio, in his obsessive defence of Ranucci, goes further and goes so far as to devalue Falcone’s work by portraying him as a sort of careerist politician. One might say that there are limits of decency which even the most heated of controversies should not cross. One might say this of anyone, but not of Travaglio, who has made a habit of overstepping every boundary. It is precisely this tendency of his to take precedence over everything else – to the point of becoming counterproductive to the purported defence of Ranucci, which he instead only manages to weaken – that is the issue.