Clinton Ca$H...

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:18 am

phpBB [video]
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Guest » Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:08 am

ATXn;D wrote:The highly anticipated Clinton Cash documentary will air for free on Breitbart on Saturday, July 23 at 8:00 p.m. ET and on Sunday, July 24 at 2:00 and 8:00 p.m. ET.


***Due to the overwhelming demand to view this film, we’ve decided to broadcast it online for free with no password required***

VIDEO: “CLINTON CASH’ IS SCREENED IN CANNES

The weekend Clinton Cash global release, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA, will set the tone for Hillary Clinton’s nomination. MSNBC calls the movie “devastating” for presumptive Democratic nominee and says it “powerfully connects the dots.” The Guardian lauds the film as “a powerful message, one that is clearly designed to stir up trouble at the convention at just the moment when Clinton should be reveling in her victory in the Democratic race.” And the Fiscal Times warns that Clinton Cash is a “weapon that could knock Clinton out.”

The film, based on the New York Timesbestselling investigative book Clinton Cash by Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, has sent shockwaves through media. The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, and other Establishment Media have verified and confirmed the book’s explosive revelations about how Hillary Clinton auctioned State Department policies to foreign Clinton Foundation donors and benefactors who then paid Bill Clinton tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees.

Time says the movie’s power comes from its focus persuading liberals. “[The film is] a scathing broadside aimed at persuading liberals,” reports Time. It is “likely to leave on-the-fence Clinton supporters who see it feeling more unsure about casting a vote for her....



fake news/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/global-airing-clinton-cash-documentary-breitbart-email-sign/

Hilllary is a spent force, she’s swimming in money and not a person to be trusted.
She likes wars too much.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:02 am

phpBB [video]
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:27 am

Federal Judge Opens Discovery Into Clinton Email Usage


December 06, 2018

Court Excoriates Obama State Department/Justice Department for Possibly Acting in “Bad Faith” and Colluding “to Scuttle Public Scrutiny” of Clinton Private Email Server

Court Criticizes Current Justice Department for “Chicanery”

District Court Judge Lamberth Orders “Proposed Plan and Schedule for Discovery Within Ten Days”

Discovery Must Also Explore Whether Clinton Intentionally Used Private Email Server to “skirt FOIA”


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that, in a ruling excoriating both the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered both agencies to join Judicial Watch in submitting a proposed schedule for discovery into whether Hillary Clinton sought to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a private email system and whether the State Department acted in “bad faith” by failing to disclose knowledge of the email system. The decision comes in a FOIA lawsuit related to the Benghazi terrorist attack.

Specially, Lamberth ruled:

… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.

Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

***

At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Lamberth wrote:

The current Justice Department made things worse. When the government last appeared before the Court, counsel claimed, ‘it is not true to say we misled either Judicial Watch or the Court.’ When accused of ‘doublespeak,’ counsel denied vehemently, feigned offense, and averred complete candor. When asked why State masked the inadequacy of its initial search, counsel claimed that the officials who initially responded to Judicial Watch’s request didn’t realize Clinton’s emails were missing, and that it took them two months to ‘figure [] out what was going on’… Counsel’s responses strain credulity. [citations omitted]

The Court granted discovery because the government’s response to the Judicial Watch Benghazi FOIA request for Clinton emails “smacks of outrageous conduct.”

Citing an email (uncovered as a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit) that Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Benghazi was a terrorist attack immediately after it happened, Judge Lamberth asked:

Did State know Clinton deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?

****

Did the Department merely fear what might be found? Or was State’s bungling just the unfortunate result of bureaucratic redtape and a failure to communicate? To preserve the Department’s integrity, and to reassure the American people their government remains committed to transparency and the rule of law, this suspicion cannot be allowed to fester.

“The historic court ruling raises concerns about the Hillary Clinton email scandal and government corruption that millions of Americans share,” stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch looks forward to conducting careful discovery into the Clinton email issue and we hope the Justice Department and State Department recognize Judge Lamberth’s criticism and help, rather than obstruct, this court-ordered discovery.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-roo ... usage/amp/
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Cactus Jack » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:32 am

Image
User avatar
Cactus Jack
 
Posts: 13631
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:15 pm
Location: Round yer somewhere

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:40 am

Grassley Seeks Information about FBI Raid of Whistleblower’s Home


Dec 04, 2018

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa wrote separately to the Justice Department’s Inspector General and the FBI Director seeking answers about the bureau’s raid on the residence of a whistleblower who reportedly disclosed information about the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One transaction.

Grassley requested the documents provided to the Inspector General by the whistleblower. Grassley also asked about the FBI’s awareness of the protected disclosures made by the whistleblower, the basis for the raid and whether any of the material seized during the raid was classified.

Last month, Grassley also wrote in an unclassified cover letter to the FBI Director on a related matter and followed up with a similar letter to both the FBI and Justice Departmentabout key portions of the classified annex to the Inspector General’s report of earlier this year.

Full text of Grassley’s letter to Inspector General Horowitzcan be found below and full text of Grassley’s letter to FBI Director Wray follows.





November 30, 2018



The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz

Inspector General

U.S. Department of Justice



Dear Inspector General Horowitz,

A recent news report has indicated that the FBI raided the home of a “whistleblower,” Mr. Dennis Nathan Cain, who provided documents regarding the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One transaction to your office.[1] The report also notes that after receiving the documents, you provided them to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. It appears, based on the reporting, that these documents were provided to your office under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. Further, it appears that the documents pertain to matters that fall within this Committee’s jurisdiction and matters upon which this Committee has inquired. Accordingly, I request that you produce all documents to the Committee and provide an update with respect to the steps you have taken, or plan to take, regarding the FBI’s treatment of Mr. Cain’s disclosures no later than December 12, 2018.

Should you have questions, please contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.

Sincerely,



Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary





November 30, 2018

The Honorable Christopher Wray

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Dear Director Wray:

On November 19, 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reportedly raided the home of a former FBI contractor, Mr. Dennis Nathan Cain, who reportedly made disclosures to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA).[2] As you are aware, the ICWPA applies to FBI contractors and provides them a mechanism by which to report waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement to Congress and the Inspector General. During the raid, agents reportedly seized documents that Mr. Cain had provided to the Inspector General and that the Inspector General later provided to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. These documents relate to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One transaction. To better understand the FBI’s basis for performing the raid, please answer the following no later than December 12, 2018:

Was the FBI aware at the time of the raid that Mr. Cain had made what appeared to be lawful disclosures to the Inspector General? If so, was the FBI aware that these disclosures were passed to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, per the ICWPA process?

Does the FBI consider Mr. Cain’s disclosures to be protected? Please explain.
On what basis did the FBI decide to carry out the aforementioned raid on November 19, 2018? Please explain and provide a copy of the warrant and all supporting affidavits.

Did the materials seized by the FBI during the raid contain any classified information? If so, was that information classified at the time Mr. Cain brought them to his residence?

I anticipate that your written reply and most responsive documents will be unclassified. Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee. In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security. Although the Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information, it is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request. If you have any questions, please contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Committee Staff at (202) 224-5225.



Sincerely,



Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary



[1] Richard Pollock, FBI Raids Home of Whistleblower on Clinton Foundation, Lawyer Says, Daily Caller (Nov. 29, 2018). https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/fbi- ... ssion=true

[2] Richard Pollock “Exclusive: FBI Raids Home of Whistleblower on Clinton Foundation, Lawyer Says” The Daily Caller (November 29, 2018). Available at: https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/fbi- ... n-uranium/



https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/ne ... wer-s-home
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:48 pm

Cactus Jack wrote:
Fletch wrote:Who is Frank Giustra?

Who gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation and at what time?

Why did the Secretary of State have to sign off agreement to sell Uranium One?

1 - Frank Giustra is a man who gave $141 million to the Clinton Foundation 3 years after he had sold his stake in Uranium One, he had no financial interest in Uranium One at the time the deal was agreed.

2 - No-one. Frank Giustra gave $141 million to the Clinton Foundation 3 years after he had sold his stake in Uranium One - he had no financial interest in the deal when it was approved. The other four million came from various charities based in Canada who had Uranium One as a part of diversified investment portfolio - it would be like saying Tesco's donation to the Conservative Party comes from an ordinary worker whose pensions fund invest in Tesco.

3 - The Secretary of State did not have to sign off and did not do so. The State Department and nine other departments had to briefed and were expected to raise any concerns through the US Nuclear Regulator and Utah's State Regulator. The State Department had no power to approve or prevent the sale.

To go further Hilary Clinton did not attend CFIUS when the matter was discussed but placed the matter in the hands of a State Department official who was given full delegated authority. No report of the meeting was ever given to Hilary Clinton, nor did she ask for one.

To go further still no Uranium whatsoever left the United States for Russia as a result of this deal, Russia does not need uranium from the United States, Russia EXPORTS uranium. In fact the US imports most of its Uranium and around 18% of it comes FROM Russia to the United States.

Image

Uranium One has been completely debunked many times.


You've just posted the approved narrative for Cinton and her cabal. Even your supposed proof of a diagram says " a lower ranking staffer, not Clinton, likely approved a deal like this"

You don't explain who Frank Giustra is either.

Uranium One isn't just about Clinton, it's the whole Obama regime up to their necks in corruption.

No charges brought because the FBI refuse to investigate. Mueller was even the gofor for them delivering HEU to Russia . (as per wikileaks release) Even congress allows her to get away with " I don't recall" and destroying subpoenaed evidence is not worthy of even a glance.

The Obama Administration’s Uranium One Scandal

The Clintons were just doing what the Clintons do: cashing in on their “public service.” The Obama administration, with Secretary Clinton at the forefront but hardly alone, was knowingly compromising American national-security interests. The administration green-lighted the transfer of control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining capacity to Russia, a hostile regime — and specifically to Russia’s state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom. Worse, at the time the administration approved the transfer, it knew that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was engaged in a lucrative racketeering enterprise that had already committed felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses.

The Obama administration also knew that congressional Republicans were trying to stop the transfer. Consequently, the Justice Department concealed what it knew. DOJ allowed the racketeering enterprise to continue compromising the American uranium industry rather than commencing a prosecution that would have scotched the transfer

In 2005, former President Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire friend and benefactor, Frank Giustra, obtain coveted uranium-mining rights from Kazakhstan’s dictator. The Kazakh deal enabled Giustra’s company (Ur-Asia Energy) to merge into Uranium One (a South African company), a $3.5 billion windfall. Giustra and his partners thereafter contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Besides the valuable Kazakh reserves, Uranium One also controlled about a fifth of the uranium stock in the United States.

CFIUS is composed of the leaders of 14 U.S. government agencies involved in national security and commerce. In 2010, these included not only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had cultivated a reputation as a hawk opposed to such foreign purchases, but Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department (and its lead agency, the FBI) were conducting the investigation of Rosatom’s ongoing U.S. racketeering, extortion, and money-laundering scheme.

In March 2010, to push the Obama “reset” agenda, Secretary Clinton traveled to Russia, where she met with Putin and Dimitri Medvedev, who was then keeping the president’s chair warm for Putin. Soon after, it emerged that Renaissance Capital, a regime-tied Russian bank, had offered Bill Clinton $500,000 to make a single speech — far more than the former president’s usual haul in what would become one of his biggest paydays ever.

It appears that no disclosure of Russia’s racketeering and strong-arming was made to CFIUS or to Congress — not by Secretary Clinton, not by Attorney General Holder, and certainly not by President Obama. In October 2010, CFIUS gave its blessing to Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One.

Yet, that is exactly what Rosenstein’s office did, in a plea agreement his prosecutors co-signed with attorneys from the Justice Department’s Fraud Section. (See in the Hill’s report, the third document embedded at the bottom, titled “Mikerin Plea Deal.”) No RICO, no extortion, no fraud — and the plea agreement is careful not to mention any of the extortions in 2009 and 2010, before CFIUS approved Rosatom’s acquisition of U.S. uranium stock. Mikerin just had to plead guilty to a nominal “money laundering” conspiracy charge. This insulated him from a real money-laundering sentence. Thus, he got a term of just four years’ incarceration for a major national-security crime — which, of course, is why he took the plea deal and waived his right to appeal, sparing the Obama administration a full public airing of the facts.

Full article at https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/ ... keteering/
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12338
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:49 pm

User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12338
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Stooo » Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:58 pm



Yeah, that looks like a totally unbiased and pretty reliable website. Reminds me of Infowars...

They won't investigate because there's nothing to investigate, it's that simple but you RW CT types can't get out of the cult-like group think that you share with the Scientology movement.

There's an arch criminal and gangster running the USA and you people validate him, it's like watching someone with early onset dementia.
User avatar
Stooo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 88477
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Everywhere, like shit in a field.

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:03 pm

Stooo wrote:


Yeah, that looks like a totally unbiased and pretty reliable website. Reminds me of Infowars...

They won't investigate because there's nothing to investigate, it's that simple but you RW CT types can't get out of the cult-like group think that you share with the Scientology movement.

There's an arch criminal and gangster running the USA and you people validate him, it's like watching someone with early onset dementia.


Me RW? :ooer:

I've said before, this is nothing to do with Cinton bad, Trump good, or vice versa. Clintons are a criminal cabal and have been for decades. Trump is corrupt and dangerous but never been in positions of power until now.

Why you think pointing out one of them is a crook means support for the other one is beyond me. They are both crooks and both dangerous.
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12338
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Stooo » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:12 pm

Fletch wrote:
Stooo wrote:


Yeah, that looks like a totally unbiased and pretty reliable website. Reminds me of Infowars...

They won't investigate because there's nothing to investigate, it's that simple but you RW CT types can't get out of the cult-like group think that you share with the Scientology movement.

There's an arch criminal and gangster running the USA and you people validate him, it's like watching someone with early onset dementia.


Me RW? :ooer:

I've said before, this is nothing to do with Cinton bad, Trump good, or vice versa. Clintons are a criminal cabal and have been for decades. Trump is corrupt and dangerous but never been in positions of power until now.

Why you think pointing out one of them is a crook means support for the other one is beyond me. They are both crooks and both dangerous.


You've just posted a link to a Wikileak twitter from 2015, Russia basically ran the site at that time and any anti Putin stuff was suppressed. Do you ever bother to read anything by Louise Mench or Carole Cadwalladr? Watch any MSNBC when the Maddow show is on?

As I say, you lot are in a cult.
User avatar
Stooo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 88477
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Everywhere, like shit in a field.

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Cactus Jack » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:43 pm

Stooo wrote:
Fletch wrote:
Stooo wrote:


Yeah, that looks like a totally unbiased and pretty reliable website. Reminds me of Infowars...

They won't investigate because there's nothing to investigate, it's that simple but you RW CT types can't get out of the cult-like group think that you share with the Scientology movement.

There's an arch criminal and gangster running the USA and you people validate him, it's like watching someone with early onset dementia.


Me RW? :ooer:

I've said before, this is nothing to do with Cinton bad, Trump good, or vice versa. Clintons are a criminal cabal and have been for decades. Trump is corrupt and dangerous but never been in positions of power until now.

Why you think pointing out one of them is a crook means support for the other one is beyond me. They are both crooks and both dangerous.


You've just posted a link to a Wikileak twitter from 2015, Russia basically ran the site at that time and any anti Putin stuff was suppressed. Do you ever bother to read anything by Louise Mench or Carole Cadwalladr? Watch any MSNBC when the Maddow show is on?

As I say, you lot are in a cult.

I got two lines into his rant and switched off as it was all stuff that has been totally debunked a thousand times.

Sadly there is a group for whom a Conspiracy Theory is all there is and any proof that there isn't a conspiracy is just more proof of how deep the conspiracy to suppress evidence of the conspiracy goes.

Naturally for this same group as Trump has set himself up as the anti-Clinton any evidence of criminal conduct against Trump, no matter how compelling and even when they heard it out of his own mouth, is similarly just more evidence of how deeply entrenched the Clinton Conspiracy is.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
 
Posts: 13631
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:15 pm
Location: Round yer somewhere

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:46 pm

Cactus Jack wrote:I got two lines into his rant and switched off as it was all stuff that has been totally debunked a thousand times.

Sadly there is a group for whom a Conspiracy Theory is all there is and any proof that there isn't a conspiracy is just more proof of how deep the conspiracy to suppress evidence of the conspiracy goes.

Naturally for this same group as Trump has set himself up as the anti-Clinton any evidence of criminal conduct against Trump, no matter how compelling and even when they heard it out of his own mouth, is similarly just more evidence of how deeply entrenched the Clinton Conspiracy is.


Only ever reading the msm whitewash is always a good way to learn the truth...
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12338
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:01 pm

Feds received whistleblower evidence in 2017 alleging Clinton Foundation wrongdoing

When a House subcommittee chairman bangs his gavel next week to convene an unprecedented investigative hearing into the Clinton Foundation, two questions will linger as preeminent: Is the Clinton family charity really the international do-gooder that earned a perfect four-star rating from Charity Navigator, or does it suffer from corruption and illegalities as conservatives allege? And if it is the latter, how much evidence of wrongdoing does the government possess?

The answer to the first question is that the foundation and its projects reported collecting about $2.5 billion to help global crises, from AIDS to earthquakes, even as its own auditors, lawyers and employees privately warned of problems over the years.

The answer to the second question may reside in 6,000 pages of evidence attached to a whistleblower submission filed secretly more than a year ago with the IRS and FBI.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... foundation

For full article.

and in other news:

After the questioning was underway, some Republicans signaled they were unhappy with Comey’s level of cooperation. California Rep. Darrell Issa said Comey had two lawyers in the room, his personal lawyer and a lawyer from the Justice Department. He said the department lawyer repeatedly instructed Comey not to answer “a great many questions that are clearly items at the core of our investigation.”

Issa suggested the committee might bring Comey back because he wasn’t answering questions. Two other Republicans, Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona and Mark Meadows of North Carolina, also suggested they might need a second session with Comey if they didn’t finish their interview by a late afternoon deadline. -AP
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12338
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Cactus Jack » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:06 pm

Fletch wrote:
Cactus Jack wrote:I got two lines into his rant and switched off as it was all stuff that has been totally debunked a thousand times.

Sadly there is a group for whom a Conspiracy Theory is all there is and any proof that there isn't a conspiracy is just more proof of how deep the conspiracy to suppress evidence of the conspiracy goes.

Naturally for this same group as Trump has set himself up as the anti-Clinton any evidence of criminal conduct against Trump, no matter how compelling and even when they heard it out of his own mouth, is similarly just more evidence of how deeply entrenched the Clinton Conspiracy is.


Only ever reading the msm whitewash is always a good way to learn the truth...

Yes because only you know the truth it was revealed to you by a voice from a cloud.

I have read a variety of sources, I have compared timelines and the only conclusion is that Uranium one is at best a case where Hilary should NOT have recused herself due to personal interest.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
 
Posts: 13631
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:15 pm
Location: Round yer somewhere

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests