Di Pietro: “Ranucci? What goes round comes round. He backed the ‘No’ vote, and the ANM is now keeping quiet”

Antonio Di Pietro applies the yardstick of divine justice. “Ranucci? What goes round comes round,” the former public prosecutor, former minister and former leader of Italia dei Valori tells Il Foglio. “If you start spinning stories,” he adds, “you’ll end up turned inside out like a sock. And it’s happened to me too.” Yes. So let us ask – in the hottest, most Homeric summer in living memory – whether this is merely a matter of nemesis. “Look, the ‘Report’ method consists of piecing together independent and autonomous parts. Of linking them with an unbreakable thread. And of constructing, from this, distorted truths. Come to think of it, that is exactly what Ranucci is going through right now, along with the accusation of associating with unsavoury characters. The very same accusation that ‘Report’ levelled at me many years ago. That it would all come back to haunt them? It was predictable.” Is it predictable or curious that the ANM magistrates are keeping quiet today? “Eh. First they praised him to the skies,” smiles Di Pietro, “and then…”. On 25 October, the day after the attack, he was welcomed at the Court of Cassation. There was emotion and thunderous applause. “Yes. But let us always remember that the National Magistrates’ Association, during the referendum, unduly claimed the right to represent all magistrates by spreading falsehoods. And that this falsehood – the subjugation of the judiciary to the executive – was then exploited by many media outlets. Including ‘Report’.” (Leganza continues on page three)

Is that why they’re not speaking out now? “The ANM should engage in some soul-searching, given that a falsehood recounted by a notary, a priest or a magistrate is not merely a political falsehood but also an ethical one. That said, I believe that the ANM should not exist, politically speaking.”

Ranucci-ANM: is it a rock-solid love affair? “I wouldn’t know.” Do you think Ranucci’s sense of superiority has been fuelled by the applause of the magistrates? “Those magistrates. Because magistrates are one thing, the ANM is another. And as you know, I’ve never been a member.” Why? “Because I regard it as a group of individuals belonging to the strongest of the state’s powers, who speak out – and go on strike – against a weaker power. Whilst we know that nobody can stop a magistrate. Apart from another magistrate, of course, or TNT.”

Di Pietro continues, with the frankness “of someone who is seventy-six” and the light-heartedness of someone who is merely a “former”: “I am not immune to anything, and my history proves it”. Of course. “But the ANM should focus on cultural considerations rather than interpreting laws according to its own ideologies”.

Is there a parallel between the ANM method and the ‘Report’ method? ‘I’ll answer that now, but let me say that I respect investigative journalism and express my full solidarity with Ranucci, the victim of an attack.’ Of course. “The point, as I was saying, is that investigative journalism is worthwhile if it reports the following day on what the judiciary did the day before. If, on the other hand, an investigation is based on nothing, or is carried out solely to prompt the judiciary to investigate, then everything comes full circle.”

Meanwhile, Valter Lavitola has confessed to being the mastermind behind the attack. “I met – and, so to speak, suffered at the hands of – Lavitola many years ago. Back in the days of Berlusconi and Senator De Gregorio. What can I say? You didn’t need to know who Ranucci was associating with to realise he was scheming for his own gain…”. Is Sigfrido no less of a schemer than Valter? “But we didn’t just find that out today! In any case, Lavitola has always been borderline, and it’s just as obvious that an investigative journalist has to deal with a man like him. Obviously, he can’t uncover much by going to Mass on Sundays. The problem, I repeat, is the method. I don’t want a country with no Sigfridos or Gabanellis, let’s be clear…”. Next up? “I’d rather have a country with a thousand Gabanellis!”. Really? “Yes. And his investigation even cost me the end of my political career…”. But? “But I don’t condemn investigative journalism. If anything, it’s their way of investigating. The fact that, based on my photo with a police commissioner, an official from the American embassy and Contrada, they’ve pieced together who knows what truths linked to my political activities. I’d simply been invited to a dinner hosted by the Carabinieri.” He who dines with the enemy… “Exactly. What I don’t agree with, therefore, is the prejudicial identification of media-exposed figures and the construction of theories. Nor do I agree, for that matter, with all the fuss about Ranucci’s private affairs.” Excuse me, but he’s spoken (and written) a great deal about women himself. “Yes, but why should we, too, mix the public and the private?” Ranucci published an autobiographical book – albeit perhaps fictionalised – in which he recounted his love affairs. “And what do they have to do with the ongoing investigation?” Nothing. They wouldn’t have anything to do with it if many other women – his friends – hadn’t been so talkative… “These are facts that have nothing to do with it. It’s a lesson that must apply to everyone.”

Variations on the myth. Meanwhile, Il Fatto Quotidiano defends him… Is Il Fatto a champion of due process? “No. I respect Marco Travaglio. I hold him in high regard and read his work even when I disagree with him. But you see, that’s not the point.” And what is? “Travaglio is someone for whom his truth is the truth.” Is he an absolutist? “He’s taken sides. I read him, but I don’t follow him.”

The ‘Report’ programme will probably continue. The ‘Report’ method? ‘That too. Unfortunately.’ Are you sure? ‘It is, in fact, a method.’ Do you mean it’s a bad habit? ‘I mean that it’s used to achieve success at the expense of others. And that, therefore, there will always be a Ranucci, even if he has a different face and a different name.’