Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

Ineligible Individuals Have Been Granted U.S. Citizenship

Posted on by

Sheesh….fingerprints eh? And those migrants, refugees and asylees don’t have any reference database for fingerprint history much less any travel documents applications.

As citizens they can vote, seek and hold sensitive jobs and more. Don’t you just wonder what DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has to say on this? Oh wait….more money from Congress will solve it all.

Summary of the Inspector General’s report:

USCIS granted U.S. citizenship to at least 858 individuals ordered deported or removed under another identity when, during the naturalization process, their digital fingerprint records were not available. The digital records were not available because although USCIS procedures require checking applicants’ fingerprints against both the Department of Homeland Security’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) digital fingerprint repositories, neither contains all old fingerprint records. Not all old records were included in the DHS repository when it was being developed. Further, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has identified, about 148,000 older fingerprint records that have not been digitized of aliens with final deportation orders or who are criminals or fugitives. The FBI repository is also missing records because, in the past, not all records taken during immigration encounters were forwarded to the FBI. As long as the older fingerprint records have not been digitized and included in the repositories, USCIS risks making naturalization decisions without complete information and, as a result, naturalizing additional individuals who may be ineligible for citizenship or who may be trying to obtain U.S. citizenship fraudulently.

As naturalized citizens, these individuals retain many of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship, including serving in law enforcement, obtaining a security clearance, and sponsoring other aliens’ entry into the United States. ICE has investigated few of these naturalized citizens to determine whether they should be denaturalized, but is now taking steps to increase the number of cases to be investigated, particularly those who hold positions of public trust and who have security clearances.

****

In July 2014,3 OPS provided the Office of Inspector General (OIG) with the names of individuals it had identified as coming from special interest countries or neighboring countries with high rates of immigration fraud, had final deportation orders under another identity, and had become naturalized U.S. citizens. OIG’s review of the list of names revealed some were duplicates, which resulted in a final number of 1,029 individuals. Of the 1,029 individuals reported, 858 did not have a digital fingerprint record available in the DHS fingerprint repository at the time U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was reviewing and adjudicating their applications for U.S. citizenship.  

USCIS checks applicants’ fingerprint records throughout the naturalization process. By searching the DHS digital fingerprint repository, the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) digital fingerprint repository, the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system,5 USCIS can gather information about an applicant’s other identities (if any), criminal arrests and convictions, immigration violations and deportations, and links to terrorism. When there is a matching record, USCIS researches the circumstances underlying the record to determine whether the applicant is still eligible for naturalized citizenship.

If USCIS confirms that an applicant received a final deportation order under a different identity, and there are no other circumstances to provide eligibility, USCIS policy requires denial of naturalization. Also, USCIS may refer the applicant’s case to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for investigation. Likewise, if a naturalized citizen is discovered to have been ineligible for citizenship, ICE may investigate the circumstances and refer the case to the Department of Justice for revocation of citizenship. Read the complete report here.

 

Judge Blasts State Dept on Hillary Email Production, then this!

Posted on by

Judge blasts State Dept for slow-walking Hillary emails

WashingtonTimes: A federal judge blasted the Obama administration for slow-walking the release of some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, saying in court Monday that the government appears to be withholding information from voters ahead of the election.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the State Department in not “being all that cooperative,” and told the Justice Department lawyers to get the State Department to shape up and do its duty.

“Get with the program, so to speak, so that the people of this country can have the information they need,” he ordered. “The State Department needs to start cooperating to the fullest extent possible. They are not perceived to be doing that.”

Judge Leon, who has earned a reputation as a funny but caustic jurist, particularly when he finds government bungling, said the Justice Department, by not forcing the State Department to cooperate better, is risking its own storied reputation.

He specifically called out the federal programs branch that acts as the lawyer for the rest of the government, and the head of that division, Marcia Berman. Ms. Berman wasn’t in the courtroom Monday, but has been a frequent figure at the courthouse over the last year as the administration has had to defend its handling of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Mondays’s case, filed by the Daily Caller News Foundation, concerned documents detailing Mrs. Clinton’s access to top secret programs. The State Department said it has found more than 1,000 documents dealing with the subject, but said it would take nearly a month to process 450 unclassified documents, and couldn’t say how long it would take to process the classified ones.

The case is one of dozens pending where the department has been accused of slow-walking, keeping information out of public view for far longer than is allowed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The State Department says it is overwhelmed by the requests and its own limited budget and manpower. Officials also say the Clinton emails are complicated because they involved classified information that requires a stricter, more time consuming process to clear for the public.

But the government has also been reluctant to divulge important details. At one point on Monday the government lawyer on the case, Jason Lee, said he didn’t know how many pages were in the documents, sparking the judge’s ire.

Judge Leon ordered a faster production of the 450, and when Mr. Lee said they would do their best, Judge Leon pounced.

“Do better than your best. Do it,” he ordered, then proceeded to scold the government for its bungling, and said it was something other judges at the courthouse had noticed.

“You have a client that, to say the least, is not impressing the judges on is court … at being all that cooperative,” he said. “This way of doing business needs to stop.”

He said this was the first open-records case he’d seen where time was so much of the essence, given Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy for the White House, and said the administration needed to realize that.

SMOKING GUN: “BleachBit” Paul Combetta ASKED TO STRIP OR REPLACE VIP’s EMAIL ADDRESS!

The electronic exchange as noted here.

[–]GateheaD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Add the VIPs email to a generic contact and hide it in plain sight.

[–]exproject 0 points1 point  (5 children)

To my knowledge, there’s no way to edit existing messages, that’s a possibility for a discovery nightmare.

To strip/rename on outbound/inbound you could rewrite it with a transport rule.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

[–]exproject 0 points1 point  (3 children)

No, a transport rule would only affect future messages.

[–]borismkv 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And it requires an Edge Transport server. Address Rewrite isn’t available on any other role.

[–]exproject 0 points1 point  (1 child)

True. I’ve seen people roll their own Transport Agents for hubs that can do rewrites, but that always looked a bit overkill.

Expanding on what /u/GateheaD said, you could give the VIP a “relay” mailbox. i.e. [email protected] forwards to [email protected]. All your users would mail VIP and Exchange would pass it in the backend so that the forwarding email address was not exposed. Meeting Forward Notifications might give it away though, I’ve never had the requirement of the sender can’t know who the end recipient is so I never actually quantified that behavior.

[–]borismkv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Relay mailbox thing is a good solution, but you just know the VIP is going to respond to emails that get forwarded to his personal email by using his personal email, which would of course result in the personal email getting added. I’d just give him a regular mailbox and ask him to use that if he wants his private address to be private. Ultimately, the privacy of the VIP’s personal email address is something the VIP should be responsible for, not the people that person emails.

[–]odoprasm 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is there no way to access and edb manually?

[–]brkdncr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you need to control who gets to email the vip, just set up stringent spam filtering where only whitelisted people or people the vip has emailed are allowed.

[–]borismkv 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There is no supported way to do what you’re asking. You can only delete emails after they’re stored in the database. You can’t change them. If there was a feature in Exchange that allowed this, it could result in major legal issues. There may be ways to hack a solution, but I am not aware of any.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

[–]borismkv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a PST file, probably not. MSG files maybe, but you would need a utility to do it, and it would be a one off kind of thing where you’d have to manually modify each email.

Moving forward, though, I would recommend that you create a mailbox for the VIP if they communicate with your environment on a regular basis. That way they aren’t using their personal email and you don’t have to worry about hiding it on future emails. There might not be much you can do about the past ones besides deleting them from all the mailboxes in your environment, which is possible.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

[–]exproject 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because you have the messages available in multiple formats and locations doesn’t change that it’s an attribute of the envelope not meant to be rewritten. The functionality is just not built into any tool I know of. Having that functionality would create the ability to screw with discovery (I mean, there could be mitigation with versioning, but that would need other configuration)

While it may not be a read-only part of the envelope(I’m not actually sure), the only tool that MIGHT be able to do what you want is MFCMapi, and I don’t think you want to play with that for this job. The chance of getting it wrong would be pretty high I think and it is not a particularly friendly tool. I’m not sure it could be scripted with it either.

My recommendation would be what /u/borismkv said. Making a mailbox for VIP and telling them to use that. Forwarding to VIPs mailbox would be ripe for them to just respond directly instead of responding through his relay mailbox.

As for your existing messages, if the current users absolutely cannot see the existing messages, you’ll need to do a search and export and just forcibly remove the messages from their mailboxes. It’s not clean and not advised by me, but if they don’t want VIPs address out there it will need to be removed. I would do a search with his email address as the query with -LogOnly -LogLevel Full and see what kind of results you get.

Due to Date Lines, Lies and Immunity Proven on Hillary’s Server

Posted on by

It is looking much worse for how the FBI led this investigation while Director Comey has moved on, sorta:

Asked whether he knew if Clinton’s attorneys saw classified information, Comey said he did not know the answer.

Chaffetz was more certain. “It has to be yes, director,” he said. “You came across 110 and they said they went through all of them.”

Comey referred Chaffetz to his statement Tuesday in which he said Clinton’s attorneys sorted the emails for classified information using headers and search terms.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Comey said, repeating, “Yes.”

Chaffetz asked, “What do you think her intent was?”

“I think that was to get good legal representation and to make the production to the State Department,” Comey responded. “I think it would be a very tall order in that circumstance, if I don’t see the evidence to make a case that she was acting with criminal intent in her engagement with her lawyers.”  More here from Politico. 

Judicial Watch: New State Department Documents Reveal Top Agency Officials Raised Questions about Clinton Emails in Early August 2013

‘Finally, John, you mentioned yesterday requests for Secretary Clinton’s emails; may I get copies.’ – Margaret Grafeld, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Global Information Services to John Hackett, Deputy Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, August 7, 2013

 Documents Reveal that in Early August 2013, State had 17 Freedom of Information Requests relating to requests for Clinton correspondence

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 113 pages of new State Department documents, revealing that in early August 2013, top State Department officials raised questions about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails and the number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking information about them.

According to the newly obtained emails, in August 2013, State Department officials were aware of 17 FOIA requests relating to requests for Clinton correspondence, including four that “specifically mention Emails or Email accounts.” Despite the large number of FOIA requests and growing concern among top agency officials, the State Department did not formally request that the former secretary of state produce the emails on the clintonemail.com server until October 2014.

Included among the 17 FOIA requests was a Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking records pertaining to possible conflicts of interest between the actions taken by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s activities. The lawsuit produced 276 pages of internal State Department records revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.”  The records also show Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.  The lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dept. of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)) was filed on May 28, 2013.

In a 2014 joint expose with the Washington Examiner Judicial Watch’s Chief Investigative Reporter Micah Morrison reported:

[F]ormer President Clinton gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and released … in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case, State Department officials charged with reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches did not object to a single one.

The new State Department documents records were obtained by Judicial Watch under court order in a March 2016, FOIA lawsuit against the agency for all records “about the processing of a December 2012 FOIA request filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW]” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:16-cv-00574)).In December 2012, CREW filed a FOIA request with the Department of State for “records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton.” In May 2013, the agency responded that “no records responsive to your request were located.”  Earlier this year, the State Department Office of Inspector General concluded that the “no records response” sent in response to this request was “inaccurate and incomplete.”

According to the newly obtained records, by early August 2013, top State Department officials raised questions about FOIA requests seeking information related to the Clinton emails:

From: Grafeld, Margaret P

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:47 AM

To: Walter, Sheryl; Hackett, John

Subject: Fw: IPS significant FOIA Report

… Finally, John, you mentioned yesterday requests for Secretary Clinton’s emails; may I get copies, pls and thx.

[Margaret Grafeld was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Services. Sheryl Walter was the State Department Director, Office of Information Programs and Services/Global Information Services. John Hackett was the Deputy Director, Office of Information Programs and Services.]

From: Walter, Sheryl L

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:51 AM

To: Hermesman, Geoffrey F [and others]

Subject: FW: IPS Significant FOIA Report

… Geoff, can you get a copy of all requests related to Clinton’s emails?

[Geoffrey Hermesman was a State Department program analyst.]

From: Hermesman, Geoffrey F

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013  12:54 PM

To: Sheryl Walter [and others]

Subject: RE: IPS significant FOIA Report

A search of the F2 database identified 17 FOIA cases that contain Clinton in the subject line and can be further construed as requests for correspondence between the Secretary and other individuals and/or organizations. Of these, four specifically mention Emails or Email accounts.

From: Finnegan, Karen M

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 4:10 PM

To: Walter, Sheryl L [and others]

Subject: RE: IPS Significant FOIA Report

Sheryl: To follow-up on my early response, Cristina is handling the Judicial Watch case, CA No. 2013-772 (DDC) (J. Kollar-Kotelly), that seeks access to all communications (including e-mail) between the Department and President Clinton and/or his foundation regarding clearing his speeches [Redacted]

[Karen Finnegan was division chief of the State Department’s freedom of information program.]

Last month, Judicial Watch released 10 pages of Department records that included an email sent by State Department spokesman Brock Johnson alerting Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s then Chief of Staff, that a “significant” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request had been made for records showing the number of email accounts used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“These new emails suggest that the Obama State Department knew about the Clinton email problem at least three years but covered it up,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “Any criminal investigation of the Clinton email scandal must include officials in the Obama administration.”

###

 

LawNewz: The New York Times first reported on Combetta’s immunity deal in an article published late Thursday evening.  The article states Combetta’s actions with respect to his work on the Clinton email server were referenced in the FBI investigation summary released on September 2 — but his name was redacted.

According to the FBI investigation summary, Combetta appears to be the individual who deleted Clinton’s email archives from the PRN systems in late March 2015.  The FBI also uncovered evidence of a work ticket referencing a conference call between PRN and Clinton’s attorneys on March 31, 2015, but Combetta was advised by PRN lawyers not to answer questions about the conference call, citing attorney-client privilege.

During his second interview with the FBI in May 2016, Combetta told investigators that he deleted the emails in late March 2015 after recalling an order from Clinton’s team in December 2014 to delete all of the emails that may still exist.  He referred to this recollection as an “oh shit” moment and decided to delete the emails, all the while knowing the preservation order existed.  Combetta also told investigators he used the BleachBit program tool, ensuring the emails could not be recovered by investigators or anyone else.

However, during his previous interview in February 2016, he told investigators that the December 2014 deletion order played no role in his decision to delete the emails.

Despite lying to investigators, Combetta reportedly received immunity from prosecution.

Before Combetta’s identity or immunity deal was reported, the Denver Post published an editorial calling the circumstances surrounding the deletion of the emails a “hard-to-believe shocker that ought to give reasonable people pause.”  PRN is a Colorado based company.

The timing of the deletion is important because it was done after Congress requested Clinton retain all of the emails that still existed.  On Tuesday, Congressman Jason Chaffetz asked the Department of Justice to conduct an obstruction of justice investigation into the deletion of the emails.

However, if reports of the immunity deal are true, it seems unlikely that any sort of obstruction of justice investigation case can go forward.  Combetta would seemingly be protected from prosecution.

That seems to be the conclusion of the Clinton campaign, at least according to what spokesman Brian Fallon told the newspaper.  Fallon said all of this had already been “thoroughly examined by the F.B.I. prior to its decision to close out this case.”

He added, “As the F.B.I.’s report notes, neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of the Platte River Network employee’s actions. It appears he acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request.”

Did Jeh Johnson Pay $500,000 to Head DHS?

Posted on by

Was it one of the Islamic organizations supportive of Barack Obama that funneled the money for Jeh Johnson to pass on to the DNC that allowed Jeh Johnson to assume his Secretary role at DHS? There is no proof, but the question needs to be asked. Mr. Johnson was invited and accepted a role in a recent ISNA Convention directly after the DNC convention.

Click here for the video. Also mentioned in this event were Jesse Jackson and Senator Dick Durbin. This is not the first rodeo for Jeh Johnson when it comes to solidarity with Islamic groups as noted here, where he spoke at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center. As a reminder, the ADAMS Center:

MIM: Mohammed Magid’s failure to condemn the attacks on America could be because his boss and benefactor, ADAMS chairman Ahmed Tontonji is:

“… an Iraqi-born citizen of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and a key target of Operation Green Quest. Totonji was also named as a defendant in a $1 trillion lawsuit filed by more than 600 relatives of people who died in the 9/11 attacks
He acted as a co-founder and officer of the Saudi-founded/Saudi-funded (and now defunct) SAAR Trust. Additionally, he served as Vice President of the Safa Group and the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT).Officials have linked the non-profit IIIT to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda (…)

***

CJR: The Executives of the ADAMS Center are very closely aligned with CAIR National.  CAIR Executives often flip flop and join one another’s terrorist supporting organization.  The ADAMS Center and CAIR National have previously been investigated and/or raided by the FBI.  Why would the FBI recruit from Islamic terror organzations for sensitive positions, such as FBI Special Agents and FBI Analysts.  The positions require a Top Secret clearance.

The answer is there is no good reason to recruit from terrorist organizations and supporters of terrorist.  FBI Special Agent Amylynn Errera, Washington Field Office sent the email to Farooq Syed, ADAMS Center.  Farooq then forwarded the email about FBI positions to members of their internal group of supporters.  I was provided a copy by a source.
The FBI sends these job opening to Islamic terror supporters, yet I would make a multi-million dollar bet that no one from the Tea Party, ACT For America, and dozens of other conservative groups are provided an up front notice of sensitive job positions in the FBI.  There are good people within the FBI, but the majority are not properly trained in regards to Islamic terrorism issues.  Then there are some who knowingly have relationships with organizations that pose a threat to our national security.
The ADAMS Center has previously been raided for their support of terrorism (RAID ON ADAMS CENTER).  I encourage readers to contact Special Agent Amylynn Errera and ask her why Islamic terror supporters (per the FBI’s own allegations) are being recruited for TOP SECRET positions within the FBI.  Her contact information is at the bottom of the email she sent to the ADAMS Center. More here.

**** 

In terms of the Counterjihad movement, the corruption of the American administration creates several problems.  If high posts are for sale, they might not be occupied by the best people.  Worse, though, they might be bought by the wrong people.  The sale of high offices allows a means of influence on our government that is not accountable to the people, especially given that it was handled secretly — and by a political party, not a formal branch of government.

For example, consider the case of Department of Homeland Security czar Jeh Johnson.  Johnson is a career public servant.  Yet he was able to come up with over half a million dollars in cash to donate to the DNC — and then “feigned disbelief” when he got the job of leading the Homeland Security agency.

How has he used this post?  Oddly enough, we were just talking about that the other day.  Johnson decided to appear at the conference of a known Muslim Brotherhood front organization, while “fully aware” of its terrorist ties.

As CJ first reported Sunday, ISNA had been considered off-limits to such high-level appearances since the U.S. Justice Department in 2008 designated the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history and a front organization for the radical Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

Johnson’s spokesman Neema Hakim told CJ that, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties and radical background, Johnson agreed to appear at the event because he considered it an “opportunity” to conduct outreach with the American Muslim community.

“DHS and the secretary are fully aware of past evidence and allegations concerning ISNA and carefully considered them before accepting ISNA’s invitation,” Hakim said.

While there, he shared a stage with a Holocaust denier and a known leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nor was this the only occasion on which he has made moves amenable to the Brotherhood. In June, he testified before Congress admitting that his agency had scrubbed references to Islam from counter-terror materials that they produced.  He claimed to have “no idea”how that happened.

Earlier in June, Johnson downplayed the role of a radical Islamist community in the Pulse nightclub shootings.  He said that shooter Omar Mateen “was ‘self-radicalized’ without any religious, ideological or operational support from friends, family or others in the Muslim community.” Yet it turned out that Mateen had ties to a known radical imam, one who had served as a bodyguard for the “blind sheikh” who carried out the first World Trade Center attacks.  Perhaps it was worth considering that Mateen might have targeted the gay nightclub in part because of the harsh language his mentor used towards “f****ts” in America, and Islam’s duty towards them?

To be clear, we at CounterJihad have no idea where Jeh Johnson got all that money.  We have no evidence establishing a causal relationship between the inexplicably large donation from a career public servant and his subsequent support of Brotherhood outlets, or the Brotherhood’s agenda.  We cannot even be certain that the documents establishing the donation are themselves fully genuine.  We have to be suspicious of them at first face, given that they passed through the hands of pro-Russian actors. More details here.

Obama is Begging Health Insurers to Save Obamacare

Posted on by

Congress has said no. There are countless lawsuits advancing in the judicial system and enrollment is failing. It cant be saved and 2017 will be the year of reckoning. Perhaps this is a good time for a reminder, not ONE single Republican voted for the law. Where are the media interviews now and where is Nancy Pelosi?

Related reading: House of Representatives v. Burwell and Congressional Standing to Sue

****

Obama steps in to save Obamacare

With no lifeline coming from the divided Congress, the administration is redoubling pleas for insurers to shore up the federal health care law.

Politico: Deep into the final year of his presidency, Barack Obama is working behind the scenes to secure Obamacare’s legacy, struggling to bolster a program whose ultimate success or failure will likely be determined by his successor.

With no lifeline coming from the divided Congress, Obama and his administration are redoubling their pleas for insurers to shore up the federal health care law and pushing uninsured Americans — especially younger ones — to sign up for coverage. The administration is nervously preparing for its final Obamacare open-enrollment season just a week before Election Day, amid a cascade of headlines about rising premiums, fleeing insurers and narrowing insurance options.

On Monday, Obama met face to face at the White House with leading insurance executives, asking for their continued commitment to the health law despite its recent spate of difficulties. Insurers have come to the White House periodically as the law has rolled out; this time the president made a direct plea for their ongoing support. They in turn pressed their case for steps the administration can still take to strengthen the Obamacare markets.

Notably absent were two of the national insurers that have already bailed on most Obamacare marketplaces — Aetna and UnitedHealth Group.

“We know that this progress has not been without challenges,” Obama wrote this week to each insurer selling Obamacare plans. “Most new enterprises have growing pains and opportunities for improvement. The Marketplace, while strong, is no exception. Time and experience will help drive that improvement, as will constructive policy changes.”

Meanwhile, the administration is taking steps on its own to prevent the marketplaces from collapsing. That includes redoubling efforts to reach out to younger potential Obamacare customers, who have proven particularly challenging to attract in large enough numbers to sustain a high-functioning insurance market. The administration hopes the bully pulpit can bolster that outreach: The president will host a “Millennial Outreach and Engagement Summit” later this month at the White House. And for the first time, the administration will be reaching out directly to individuals who paid a fine last year for not having coverage. HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell was on the Hill Thursday updating anxious Democrats about the administration’s efforts to fortify the program.

In a concession to insurers, the administration has also recently taken steps to tighten the enrollment rules to prevent people from gaming Obamacare’s coverage system. Insurers have complained that some customers have been signing up in “special enrollment periods” when they get sick and then dumping coverage once they’ve been treated. Insurers warn the abuse of the rules — designed to help people in special, limited circumstances — is driving up premiums for all Obamacare customers.

Insurers at Monday’s meeting reiterated their concerns about those enrollment issues, according to three insurance officials at the meeting. Burwell and White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett were among administration officials who attended.

“They are definitely moving in the right direction,” said Mario Molina, CEO of Molina Healthcare. “I think the industry’s concern is how quickly they move on these things.”

Martin Hickey, CEO of New Mexico Health Connections, was similarly enthusiastic about the summit with Obama.

“He sincerely seemed to be listening, and I think that gave a lot of comfort to people in the room,” Hickey said. “We all left feeling hopeful that he and the secretary and their staffs would do what they can to address the issues brought up. I honestly felt optimistic.”

But six years after passage of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the litany of woes afflicting the Obamacare marketplaces is formidable. Enrollment has plateaued at half of what was projected. Three major insurers have largely quit, citing big losses. Double-digit rate hikes are the norm for plans across the country. And roughly one in five Americans may find just one insurer selling plans in their area when they shop for 2017 coverage.

Despite all those problems, the administration still has a compelling case to make for the law’s achievements and for fixing it rather than scrapping it.

On Tuesday, the Census Bureau announced that the uninsured rate last year dipped to 9.1 percent, down more than 4 percentage points since 2013. Nearly 13 million fewer Americans were uninsured last year than prior to the full implementation of Obamacare.

Initial data from the CDC suggests that the uninsured rate has kept right on dropping into this year, to a historic low of 8.6 percent.

In addition, the Obama administration no longer faces the ugly prospect that no insurers will be selling plans in Pinal County, Ariz. The threat of that county becoming an Obamacare ghost town was lifted last week when Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona announced that it would sell plans in the county.

But the progress on coverage expansion hasn’t convinced Republicans that the law is sustainable. Most Republicans, including presidential nominee Donald Trump, continue to call for full repeal of the law, which was passed entirely with Democratic votes. That’s made any discussion around legislative fixes to bolster Obamacare a nonstarter.

That unyielding stance has proven potent politically: Republicans have won control of both chambers of Congress in part by demonizing Obamacare. And there’s no chance their stance will change before Election Day. Obamacare’s recent woes have only amped up the apocalyptic rhetoric from Republicans.

“Obamacare is unraveling at an alarming rate,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the HELP Committee, on the Senate floor Wednesday. “There’s no excuse for having a failing insurance market where taxpayers are paying most of the bill.”

A hearing this week before the House Energy and Commerce Committee provided another platform for Republicans to bash Obamacare.

“Premium are off the charts,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who chairs the committee. “Competition has dramatically declined. All in all the everyday patient is left paying more for fewer choices.”

But Democrats countered that Republicans have done everything possible to sabotage Obamacare, holding dozens of repeal votes and hearings to highlight the law’s shortcomings. They stressed that any legislation as complex as the Affordable Care Act is inevitably going to require legislative fixes.

“It’s time to stop having this kabuki dance over and over again, and it’s time to figure out how we can fix the Affordable Care Act,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt stressed similar points during testimony before the committee.

“Undertaking fundamental change is rarely easy,” Slavitt said. “Our mantra is to continually learn and adjust.”

But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) scoffed at the idea that Republicans should work to salvage the law. “I remember the victory dance that you guys performed after passing Obamacare without a single Republican vote,” McCain said at a hearing on Thursday. “Now the chickens have come home to roost.”

Without any cooperation from Congress, the administration’s ability to fortify the Obamacare markets remains limited. Of course, the law’s namesake is soon to be a lame duck. That raises at least the possibility that the political gridlock that has existed since Obamacare’s passage could finally ease.

“We’re just hoping that we can get to some practicality come January,” said Ceci Connolly, CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans.