Russian Collusion (Central Intelligence Agency)

To Whom It May Concern:

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

All documents that relate to Russian collusion in elections of 2014 and 2016. This will include all reports prepared for your agency. Also, it will include all emails sent to and from the director of your agency. The dates would be from 1/1/2013 to present date.
News Article:
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/russian-indictment-2016-elections-rod-rosenstein-announcement-today-2018-02-16/
Presidential acknowledgment of brief information:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964594780088033282

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,

Carlos Gamez

What is the status of this request?

What is the status of F-2018-00940?

I hereby appeal the response to my February 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. In the response letter it was stated that a search was conducted and that no documents were found that “…[revealed] a publicly-acknowledged link between the CIA and the subject of [my] request.” Based on the careful wording, it seems like there were no documents found that reveal a publicly-acknowledged link; however, it merits the question of whether any documents were found, irrespective of it being publicly-acknowledged by the agency. The question also arises as to whether all places were searched for records and not only places that may seem to contain the records (“…a search reasonably calculated…). The courts have previously found that a search must be conducted that is reasonable and not just in those places that the respective agency deems as adequate. As such, I appeal the response regarding the 2014 election as being an inadequate search because documents may have been located that did not reveal a publicly-acknowledged link and there was not a Glomar response of choosing to confirm nor deny that such documents exist. On a second note, in the records released it is shown that DNI Clapper, during his official capacity, acknowledged that the Russian government has been meddling at least since 2014. That being said, he can be considered as the leader of the intelligence community which includes the CIA. As such, any and all documents that relate to Russian interference in the 2014 election has been acknowledged by an appropriate government official that has had some relationship, at least in part, with the CIA.
I also appeal the decision to withhold additional material that was denied in its entirety. The applicable FOIA exemptions that were stated involved exemption 1, 3, 5, and/or 6. One issue that arises is the fact that the nature of the material is not explained as to why the documents meets the threshold for these exemptions. In regard to exemption 1, EO 13526 outlines four conditions for a document to be originally classified. In this case, the burden is on the agency to meet these conditions that was not provided in the response. In this case, the document must meet one of eight categories in order to remain classified. No information was provided as to the documents meeting one of the categories. The documents must also carry a harm currently to national security and should not be used in retrospect. If no current national security harm exists, then the documents also fail this crucial point. On that note, FOIA allows for “segregable portions” of documents to be released and its purpose is for transparency of government. As such, if portions of the documents are able to be released and does not satisfy the burden, they must be. Public interest in disclosure outweighs the potential harm to national security.
In this case, both Section 6 of the Central Intelligence Agency of 1949, as amended, and Section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, is invoked. Regarding the first section invoked, it is clear in its wording that “…the organization, functions, names, office titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed…” may not be disclosed. If such information is on the document, only this information is prevented from disclosure and may be segregated from the rest of the document under this exemption. The second law invoked shows the basis of protecting intelligence sources and methods. In the subsection that follows, it shows that if source and method information is removed, it should allow for dissemination. Once again, this shows that if the document can be “segregable”, then the document should be released.
The provision of exemption 5 is referred to the deliberative process exemption. In this case, all memorandums and letters must be inter- or intra-agency. If these documents were shared to Congress, at any point, the threshold is failed as the respective agency gave the documents to what is defined as a “third-party”. Also, the agency must show that there will be a chilling effect if these documents are released. For exemption 6, the public interest may be weighed against privacy interest. For example, if one of these withheld documents show a conversation, it may be important to know who said what. As such, the letter does not satisfy the burden of the exemptions and the documents should be released. If the exemptions do apply, the documents should be released in a segregable format and the reasons as to the exemptions should be adequately explained.