Grazie Amanda!

[King Z.]

Io sono rimasto folgorato dall'acume di questo 3d e sono giunto alla inevitabile conclusione che "certi" Magistrati incompetenti, inaffidabili, malati di protagonismo, interessati soltanto a demonizzare gli imputati siano TUTTI quelli che hanno inquisito Berlusconi .

Forza Silvio salvaci dalla malagiustizia italiana !


repapelle:repapelle:repapelle:

[tolomeo]

Io sono rimasto folgorato dall'acume di questo 3d e sono giunto alla inevitabile conclusione che "certi" Magistrati incompetenti, inaffidabili, malati di protagonismo, interessati soltanto a demonizzare gli imputati siano TUTTI quelli che hanno inquisito Berlusconi .

Forza Silvio salvaci dalla malagiustizia italiana !


repapelle:repapelle:repapelle:

embe', l'acume di king ci fotte sempre. iango:iango:

kingzorc il Depositario!

kingzorc, il Difensore dei proprietari e ex proprietari di mercedes!

kingzorc, Colui che sa!




(non avevi detto che scappavi a votare Berlusconi?)

[sisifo68]

Grazie Amanda!

Il New Yorl Times a firma dell'opinionista Timothy Egan, ha spiegato ai lettori come certi magistrati italiani siano improponibili:
incompetenti, inaffidabili, malati di protagonismo, interessati soltanto a demonizzare gli imputati, con curriculum imbarazzanti, insomma gente che in qualsiasi altro post civile sarebbe tenuta lontana dal delicato compito di indagare e giudicare le persone.

Ora, gli americani sanno quanto valga la giustizia in Italia, indipendentemente dal fatto se Amanda sia o meno colpevole.

Speriamo solo che riescano a fare due piu' due, a quel punto le baggianate che gli passa Repubblica su Berlusconi e i suoi processi verranno soppesate con maggiore cognizione di causa.

Infatti. SE avessimo giudici più efficienti, i processi a Berlusconi non sarebbero andati prescritti. E lui non sarebbe a piede libero.
Comunque sono disinformati. CREdono che qui sia come da loro, dove i procuratori sono eletti e se condannano molta gente fanno carriera ed entrano in politica.
Da noi entrano in politica quando cercano di mandarli in galera perché hanno dato fastidio a qualche potere forte.

[LiberoCittadino]

shadowing, non essere patetico col tuo corriere fiorentino... repapelle:repapelle:

vai all'originale almeno, ma capisco come i dipietristi e i loro cagnolini al guinzaglio piddini si possano sentire offesi dalla dura realta'...


Amanda Knox faces 30 years in prison if convicted. For Mignini, what is at stake is his reputation, his honor – no small things in Italy. I’m haunted by an observation from Rachel Donadio, my Times colleague in Rome. In last Sunday’s paper, in trying to explain Silvio Berlusconi, she wrote:

“In Italy, the general assumption is that someone is guilty until proven innocent. Trials – in the press and in the courts – are more often about defending personal honor than establishing facts, which are easily manipulated.”

An Innocent Abroad - Timothy Egan Blog - NYTimes.com

The general assumption che hai sottolineato non differisce dal tuo post iniziale.
Nei sei consapevole, vero?

Fa piacere sapere che anche tu ti fidi della stampa estera :mmm:

[Amalie]

embe', l'acume di king ci fotte sempre. iango:iango:

kingzorc il Depositario!

kingzorc, il Difensore dei proprietari e ex proprietari di mercedes!

kingzorc, Colui che sa!




(non avevi detto che scappavi a votare Berlusconi?)

mica per nulla il suo nick è King.....

[sisifo68]

Parlano tanto di sto caso, ma dimenticano sempre di dire, all'estero, che inizialmente Amanda ha dichiarato di essere stata presente sul luogo, e di aver visto e riconosciuto l'assassino in un poveraccio che se fosse per lei ora sarebbe in galera a vita.
Una personcina davvero deliziosa, nevvero?

[LiberoCittadino]

io sono sempre rilassato, sei tu il paranoico dipietrista difensore della supercasta.

In the reality show that is today’s Italy, Mr. Berlusconi is the clear winner. His rivals are doing little more than throwing tomatoes on stage. The actor is showing signs of fatigue, but the audience is glued to its seats. Après lui, le déluge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/we...donadio&st=cse

Riportalo per intero, furbetto del quartierino.

I got a call last week from an Italian friend, an investigative reporter. He had just spoken to an Italian magistrate who wanted to sound out a theory.

The magistrate wondered — in all seriousness — if my recent article in The New York Times about Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s personal life could be evidence that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, envious of Mr. Berlusconi’s media empire, was using me to take down the prime minister.

My friend quickly and rightly dismissed the theory for what it was: insane. But the fact that it had been advanced by a respectable magistrate tells you almost everything you need to know about how power operates in Italy. It also goes a long way toward explaining the unstoppable success of Mr. Berlusconi, a phenomenon as alien to Americans as conflict-of-interest laws are to Italians.

Americans are forever asking how Italy can keep voting for Mr. Berlusconi, whose legal problems — not to mention his wife’s recent threats of divorce and accusations about her husband’s dalliances with very young women — would have toppled governments elsewhere.

But Italians don’t always see things this way. In Italy, abuse of office is something of a foreign concept, even though an Italian court is now investigating whether Mr. Berlusconi committed it when he used government planes to shuttle guests, including a Neapolitan singer and a flamenco dancer, to gala parties at his villa in Sardinia.

Mr. Berlusconi has brushed this off, as he has all other claims of impropriety, as a campaign against him by left-wing magistrates and journalists. He says they want to discredit his center-right coalition ahead of this weekend’s elections for the European Parliament, which he is still expected to win.

While wildly off target in my case, the magistrate’s Bloomberg theory is not entirely crazy. Mr. Berlusconi last week suggested in an interview that The Times of London had published critical editorials about him because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose Sky is the largest player in the Italian cable television market after Mr. Berlusconi.

In Italy, this is seen as business as usual. The general understanding is that everyone uses the means at his disposal to fight his rivals.

The real issue here is that Italy is not a meritocracy. It is a highly evolved feudal society in which everyone is seen as — and inevitably is — the product of a system, or a patron.

During the postwar years, the American-backed Christian Democrats, Moscow-backed Communists and business-minded Socialists had their own networks of politicians, bankers, lawyers — and their own press organs. That corrupt patronage system collapsed with the end of the cold war and a huge bribery scandal.

Today, there is no ideology and no network; there is only Mr. Berlusconi, and you are either with him or against him. Compared to the old order, Mr. Berlusconi’s political class is seen as a modernizing force. Mr. Berlusconi’s rivals accuse him of being on the wrong side of the law, and he in turn accuses them of being on the wrong side of history. Those two things shouldn’t cancel each other out, but often do.

The members of the Italian left have been infighting since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and are so weak and ineffective today that some in this land of byzantine conspiracy theories believe that Mr. Berlusconi must be paying them off.

Italy is deeply confusing for Americans, who are steeped in notions of speaking truth to power and following the money, raised in the country of “Yes we can,” not “Sorry, Signora, that’s impossible.”

In the topsy-turvy logic of Italy, Mr. Berlusconi’s unrivalled grip on the public and private sectors and media outlets doesn’t make him seem compromised. Instead, his supporters see him as rich enough to be independent. As one working-class Roman told me not long ago, full of admiration, “he’s so rich, he didn’t even need to go into politics.”

In Italy, when journalists ask completely legitimate questions about the legal status and personal life of the leader of a Group of Eight country — or even when they ask why Italy doesn’t seem to care about the answers — they are inevitably accused of insulting the prime minister or of being the pawns of larger interests.

In Italy, the general assumption is that someone is guilty until proven innocent. Trials — in the press and in the courts — are more often about defending personal honor than establishing facts, which are easily manipulated.

Sometimes I wonder what Pope Benedict XVI, who has railed against the “dictatorship of relativism,” in which equating all beliefs leads to nihilism, would make of Italy. Here, information is used less to clarify than to obfuscate.

How else to interpret the barrage of wildly contradictory material that has emerged in the press in recent weeks about how Mr. Berlusconi met Noemi Letizia, whose 18th birthday party he attended in April — an act that so angered his long-estranged wife that in threatening divorce she became de facto opposition leader?

In the absence of a clear, coherent story, the only standard of evidence becomes personal loyalty.

Ms. Letizia said in an interview last week that she was upset that her new boyfriend had auditioned for the reality television show “Big Brother” without asking her permission.

In the reality show that is today’s Italy, Mr. Berlusconi is the clear winner. His rivals are doing little more than throwing tomatoes on stage. The actor is showing signs of fatigue, but the audience is glued to its seats. Après lui, le déluge.

[Amalie]

Parlano tanto di sto caso, ma dimenticano sempre di dire, all'estero, che inizialmente Amanda ha dichiarato di essere stata presente sul luogo, e di aver visto e riconosciuto l'assassino in un poveraccio che se fosse per lei ora sarebbe in galera a vita.
Una personcina davvero deliziosa, nevvero?

davvero.. una psicopatica disposta a fare incarcerare un altro al posto del vero colpevole:giagia:

[sisifo68]

Uno di colore per giunta, un immigrato. Pensava di essere negli states.

[mylos]

delle tue paranoie non me ne frega un cazzo.

il topic e':

Il New Yorl Times a firma dell'opinionista Timothy Egan, ha spiegato ai lettori come certi magistrati italiani siano improponibili:

incompetenti, inaffidabili, malati di protagonismo, interessati soltanto a demonizzare gli imputati, con curriculum imbarazzanti, insomma gente che in qualsiasi altro post civile sarebbe tenuta lontana dal delicato compito di indagare e giudicare le persone.


capisco che i dipietristi e i loro cagnolini da grembo piddini si sentano offesi, la cosa non mi meraviglia anzi mi fa molto piacere, vuol dire che la giustizia italiana e' cosi' come viene descritta, la verita' offende sempre gli ipocriti.

Ma che certi magistrati non siano dei geni è ovvio, la perfezione non esiste...
ma non è colpa dei magistrati se il parlamento è pieno imputati, condannati e mafiosi iaociao: