Dear director,
I read with great interest the interview with the former president of the Veneto region Giancarlo Galan ten years after the investigation into the corruption system that developed around the Moses. Galan, speaking to the Gazzettino, declares himself innocent, says he has never taken a euro from the Venezia Nuova Consortium and assures that there is no hidden treasure of his. He also guarantees that he agreed to a plea deal not because he recognized himself guilty of the crimes he had been accused of, but only because he couldn’t wait to go home and see his daughter again. Finally, the former governor “justifies” the accusations of having pocketed money that were leveled against him by old associates such as Giorgio Baita and Claudia Minutillo as revenge for not having supported the rise of councilor Renato Chisso to the presidency of the Veneto Region. Honestly, having experienced that political season quite closely, this last “explanation” especially doesn’t seem very convincing to me. However, I take note of what Galan says and his declaration of innocence. However, there is one point that leaves me doubtful and which in my opinion makes the things he says less credible. I am referring to him when he states that if he found himself in that situation today, he would not negotiate. But he would let himself be questioned at the trial and would reveal, in his words, who in Rome was really dealing with Mose. I wonder: why doesn’t he do it? What’s stopping him? If others and not him really benefited from bribes or received illicit financing, why, even 10 years later, does he not reveal it, does he not say names and situations? He’s out of politics, so he shouldn’t have anything to lose. If he wants to publish this letter of mine, I ask you to sign it as a signed letter.
Signed letter
Venice
Dear reader,
your doubts are mine too. But the only one who could give an answer to his (and our) questions is alone Giancarlo Galan.
As soon as I read the text of the interview which we then published, I asked myself exactly this: why does the former president of Veneto, so generous with details in some of his answers, when he touches on the topic of bribes limit himself to evoking and hides behind cryptic phrases? In short: he suggests that he knows something. But he doesn’t say. Galan explains in the interview that he didn’t really care about MOSE (and MOSE money). But he adds: there was someone who did it and I know well who he was. If so, why has he never talked about it and doesn’t even now? After all, wouldn’t this be the most effective way to give credibility to his innocent narrative? But perhaps, behind those half-baked revelations there is some piece of truth that is still missing and which obviously escapes us. Not in Galan, though.
