Pre-2016 Election Investigation

To Whom It May Concern:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request the following records:

Investigative reports and additional material from the central records system as well as field office records regarding the investigation of a potential terrorist threat on the election (11/08/2016) that included the questioning of American citizens with Pakistani origin on the weekend of 11/04/2016- 11/06/2016.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Vaughn Golden

The documents in question requests no specific personal information and seeks to serve a broader look into the agency's practices.
The following precedent was set forth in Department of the Air Force v. Rose in 1976:

"Mink, supra at 410 U. S. 79. Congress therefore structured a revision whose basic purpose reflected "a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language." S.Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965) (hereinafter S.Rep. No. 813). To make crystal clear the congressional objective -- in the words of the Court of Appeals, "to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny," 495 F.2d at 263 -- Congress provided in § 552(c) that nothing in the Act should be read to "authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated. . . ." Consistently with that objective, the Act repeatedly states "that official information shall be made available to the public,' `for public inspection.'" Mink, supra at 410 U. S. 79. There are, however, exemptions from compelled disclosure. They are nine in number, and are set forth in § 552(b). But these limited exemptions do not obscure the basic policy that disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act."

Any information considered personal or revealing to a law enforcement investigation could either redacted or omitted to the requested documents without revealing such information.

The agency also fails to demonstrate how the responsive documents “logically” “create a risk of circumvention of the law.” Also, the records would not reveal any information about investigative techniques that are not already common knowledge.