Threats against Hillary Clinton USSS

To Whom It May Concern:

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

Records relating to threats against Hillary Clinton and any investigations resulting from them, as well as any materials relating to any decisions to not investigate certain threats (e.g. the threat is determined to not be credible or was not actually meant as a threat). Please include but do not limit materials to any response and discussion of then Presidential candidate Donald Trump's call for "Second Amendment people" to "do" something about Hillary Clinton and her then potential judicial appointments. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html

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,

Michael Best

I am a member of the news media and request classification as such. I have previously written about the government for AND Magazine, MuckRock and Glomar Disclosure. My articles have been widely read, with some reaching over 100,000 readers. As such, as I have a reasonable expectation of publication and my editorial and writing skills are well established.

I am appealing the adversarial rejection in its entirety.

1. Hypothetical exemptions are not grounds for refusing to do a search. Specific exemptions may be cited for specific materials and items only once they have been identified - not on hypothetical grounds.
2. I am willing to accept the redacted materials which the agency is obligated by statute to provide provided that the agency properly identifies each item and the redactions being used for it. However, I will also appeal any overly broad redactions.
3. The number of records to search is irrelevant, and the request is not overly broad or unreasonable. As a member of the press, the agency is obligated to do a full search without charging me for it.
4. The electronic search can and should be automated, and should not be an impediment to the identification of records.
5. Assuming arguendo that the full breadth of the request is too broad or unreasonable, I also provided specific examples that I wanted information on - including the statements made by Donald Trump. This allows for quick identification of the records and provides a reasonable lead for the identification of those records. The Secret Service cannot credibly claim that a request for information on a specific threat is unreasonably broad.
6. The limitations of the FOIA staff and the agency's refusal to staff it properly with employees of sufficient number and skill to fulfill their statutory obligations under FOIA does not relieve the agency of those statutory obligations.

On the basis of, but not limited to, the facts mentioned above I am appealing the adversarial decision to refuse to attempt to search for the records and provide them.