>> [ there have been news and other reports,
>> denied by him, that Andy Stern is being
>> investigated by the FBI ]
>
> * * * That DOJ has yet to contact Stern or SEIU
> on this matter might lead one to conclude there is no
> DOJ investigation, no?
This is not a comment about whether Stern's reported denial is/isn't true or otherwise about him or the SEIU, in particular, because whatever information I have in that connection is limited to news reports and to some who claim to be sources maybe (but maybe not) comparable to those to whom D. Henwood referred.
But as a more generalized matter of ordinary FBI and comparable law enforcement practice, "no" is the more commonly prevalent answer to the above question. In other words, the presumption that appears to underlie the first portion of that semi-rhetorical question may have it exactly backward.
Especially in complex "white collar" contexts (re. which contrast, f'r'instance, the emergency bank robbery scenario when FBI agents might have an immediate reason to ask the prospective defendant, "What's that smoking gun doing in your hand and where and how did you get that bag of money?"), there are many reasons reflected in common policy and practice why the primary target often is deliberately the last to be questioned (if he is questioned at all). Indeed, a would-be target's true denial that he has not been questioned by law enforcement agents not infrequently is one harbinger of prospective status as a defendant.