Form -Foia -Request For Public Record: Fill & Download for Free

My job has me reporting on the Federal Communications Commission primarily. So if there’s something I want, my first step is either to request it first from an agency public information officer or, if I know it’s something that will require a Freedom of Information Act request, to use the federal FOIAonline Home portal and file it via that.There are numerous sample FOIA request forms online, and I copy/paste one of those and fill it in with my own pertinent information.

Maybe here?: https://tts.sec.gov/cgi-bin/request_public_docsieFor public records not posted to the web (usually dated prior to 1996) including SEC records and documents, historic Commission filings, special reports and studies, speeches, and testimony you may use any of the following three methods:Use our online formSend a fax to: (202) 772-9337Submit a written request to:U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionOffice of FOIA/PA Operations100 F Street N.E.Washington, DC 20549-2736

Nope, to me, it does not.I will be voting for her, because I believe the alternative is worse. But it's useful to look at these undisputed facts below, and ask if these, collectively, are the signs of an objective and thorough investigation, and apolitical DOJ participation singularly centered around getting the truth:Five different key players were granted immunity by the DOJ. Five. Yet zero prosecutions thus far have resulted from this largesse. Typically, immunity deals are struck to actually gather evidence and testimony which results in a prosecution. To hand out five of them and then not go forward with even impaneling a grand jury is, well, infrequent. Even Director Comey found this “unusual,” and could not it recall it ever having been done in his long career.In many cases, the relevant materials (e.g., Cheryl Mills’ computer, Combetta’s computer) could have been seized without an immunity agreement. Though Mills claimed client-attorney privilege, no effort appears to have been made by the DOJ or FBI to challenge that assertion — and in DC at least, courts can require that an attorney provide the prior retention agreement and/or evidence of payment for services. No such effort to do so appears in the FBI reports. Attorney-client privilege cannot be asserted when it is in furtherance of a crime.For months, Cheryl Mills was publicly described as “cooperative”, a politically beneficial portrayal for the Clinton campaign, yet it took months for the FBI to actually get her computer, and the DOJ somehow felt it was necessary to agree to an immunity deal months after the investigation began. How, precisely, is that “cooperative”?The immunity side-deal specified that nothing after January 31, 2015 would be used in prosecuting Mills. Huh? Why? Relatedy, it just so happens that the deletion of backup data that was subject to valid subpoena at the time was in late March 2015, outside the specified search zone per the immunity side-deal. Huh. You may ask, when were the documents that were sought by Congressional subpoena actually destroyed from backup servers? Answer: After January 31, 2015. Given that Secretary Clinton’s first extended public statements about the server happened in March of 2015, and evidence lawfully subpoenaed by Congress was destroyed in March or April of 2015, wouldn’t a typical investigation, focused on investigating the full truth, be interested in communications that occurred in February, March and April of 2015? Why did they agree to consider this “off-limits”?Cheryl Mills, a key figure likely involved in direction of the deletion of documents that were under lawful subpoena and potential co-conspirator, was allowed to sit in on the one and only interview with Clinton. (!) A far more typical investigative practice is to separate the principle players and test whether their stories align. No such effort was made; she was allowed to sit in on Secretary Clinton’s one and only interview with the FBI. Cheryl Mills was one of the key players granted immunity by the DOJ. No effort appears to have been made to challenge the assertion of client-attorney privilege, such as asking her to provide evidence of a prior retainer agreement.The spouse of the primary figure in the case just happened to meet privately with the Attorney General less than a week before the interview. Appropriate?The FBI did not immediately seize the computers from PRN and Clinton when the matter was first made public and when the issue of potential mishandling of classified information was raised. It took months for them to do so.According to CNN, three separate FBI field offices recommended investigation into improper mixing of foundation and State Department business. The DOJ denied these requests.In announcing his recommendation finding that she had met pretty much all the conditions for violation of US 18 S793(f), Comey rested his case on the idea that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring such a case without evidence of intent. This completely ignores the fact that intent is not required in S793(f), only gross negligence. Since that time, several Assistant Attorneys General and Attorneys General have said that yes, they would have brought such a case.Even though he rested his recommendation not to prosecute on no evidence of intent, no substantial line of questioning focusing on intent appears to have been asked in the interview that also included Cheryl Mills sitting in at the time.Even though he rested his recommendation not to prosecute on no evidence of intent, he failed to recommend that the case be brought to a grand jury to consider the fact that she repeatedly made false exculpatory statements, which is often used by prosecutors in courts as evidence of intent.Clinton was not required to take an oath before her one and only interview, nor was the interview videotaped.FBI Director Comey did not attend the interview itself, nor did he read the entire transcript, only the 302s, before arriving at his recommendation.The president of the United States gave his effusive endorsement to Secretary Clinton well before the investigation was concluded. (The DOJ and Secretary of State both report into the presidency.) No independent third-party prosecutor or investigator was ever appointed.At this writing, the FBI does not appear to be investigating any form of perjury, nor have they come to any public conclusion on the matter. Additionally, the FBI did not investigate whether she was responsive to FOIA requests nor did it investigate whether she complied with the Federal Records Act. Director Comey repeatedly stated that the investigation was limited to investigating the handling of classified information. Can enforcing such a narrow scope be considered “thorough”?When asked by lawful Congressional oversight to produce the specific immunity agreements, an FBI investigator directed Congress to seek them out from the FBI through FOIA or a subpoena. They were not provided to investigators. (Why must Congress issue a FOIA request or subpoena for this? Don’t they have the lawful Constitutional role of oversight?)The FBI repeatedly has done “data dumps” on late Friday afternoons, including right before long holiday weekends. Several of these data dumps have had information in them that put either the key players or the administration in an unfavorable light. Late Friday data-dumps are time-honored ways of burying politically damaging information. Yet the FBI is supposed to be apolitical.The president was found by the FBI to have sent at least one email to the private server using a pseudonym, perhaps more. This appears to put to lie his statement that he found out about the private server “when everybody else did, through news reports.” (Raising the question: if Secretary Clinton were found guilty of violating US 18 S 793(f), would that have any ramifications on people who sent her email on that server?)News reports indicate that Paul Combetta lied to the FBI after the immunity deal was in place, yet the DOJ continues to this day to honor that immunity agreement. It is nearly certain that Cheryl Mills also lied to the FBI when she stated she was “unaware” of Secretary Clinton's private server. Aren't immunity deals often severed if a subject lies to investigators?Thus far, the public has not been provided the full extent of the immunity agreements. Even Congress has been asked by the FBI to submit FOIA requests for them. Huh? Doesn’t Congress have a lawful oversight role here? What national security interest is at stake that makes these immunity agreements and side deals so off-limits for immediate public disclosure?According to emails released in Wikileaks, the DOJ was in private communication with the head spokesman of the Clinton campaign in advance of a judge’s decision regarding the document-production timeline. Is it appropriate for the DOJ to be in communication with Clinton’s campaign team? https://pjmedia.com/trending/201...A longtime Clinton ally (Terry McAuliffe) apparently donated more than half a million dollars (through the VA DNC and also personally) to the wife of the FBI director whose department oversaw the Clinton email investigation. To the Associate Director: why not recuse oneself? Seems a pretty clear conflict of interest, no?In her one and only interview with the FBI, Clinton referenced her head injury in part to explain her inability to recall certain details. Reportedly, agents wanted to get her medical records to verify whether that might be a factor. Comedy denied these requests. (Judge Napolitano: What happened to the FBI? It's been corrupted by Obama and his team)Even a small handful of these (say, pick any four) would cause me to seriously doubt the impartiality and objectivity. But collectively, they paint a concerning picture.No, I'm not convinced the DOJ and FBI ran an impartial, objective and thorough process.