reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript depicts an undercover investigation into alleged fraud surrounding the federal 8(a) and pass-through programs used to award contracts to minority-owned small businesses. The participants discuss how government contractors, including ATI Government Solutions, allegedly leverage Native American status to win and maximize contracts with limited competition. Key points asserted in the dialogue: - ATI would supposedly handle about 20% of the actual development work, while subcontractors would perform roughly 80% of the work. This arrangement is framed as a “pass-through” scheme in which the prime contractor profits while outsourcing most of the labor. - It is claimed that because ATI is allegedly Native American–owned, it benefits from set-asides and government contracts with little or no bidding. The conversation emphasizes that Native status enables “an automatic win because of your Native American status” and that there is “no competition” in certain bids. - The discussion references a mechanics of 51% ownership on paper versus real control: “On paper 51%,” with the assertion that the tribal ownership is maintained on paper for compliance, while the supporting operations are controlled by non-Native executives. The participants claim this arrangement allows ATI to secure large contracts (e.g., “$100,000,000 contracts”) with minimal direct work by the Native-owned entity. - The investigation identifies Malayne Cromwell, ATI’s director of contracts, and describes her explaining pass-throughs and the 51% on-paper ownership. It is claimed that ATI’s on-paper tribal ownership is designed to ensure favorable treatment in bidding, while the actual work is done by subcontractors. - The transcript also includes a broader claim that the Susanville Indian Rancheria appears to own ATI on paper, but two non-Native executives—Furmidge Crutchfield (CEO) and Scott Deutschman (CDO)—manage operations, with Crutchfield and the ranchería’s involvement described as minimal in practice. Cromwell allegedly confirms that ATI adheres to the 51% tribal ownership on paper. - A hypothetical arrangement is discussed in which the tribe would own 51% of a new company to obtain government contracts, with the actual work performed by others. The conversation asserts this would allow a party to pose as Native American-owned to gain bids. - The investigation notes the potential legal risk and references cases like Cusisis v. United States, noting that deception in securing contracts can lead to wire fraud charges. It cites a Supreme Court interpretation emphasizing deception as the focus of the fraud statute. - The report highlights a dramatic rise in ATI’s profits from about $2,000,000 in 2019 to $100,000,000 projected for the current year, suggesting the structure is being exploited to generate large sums under the 8(a) program. It also mentions SBA thresholds for small-business status and describes how Crutchfield allegedly cycles through new companies to stay below those limits. - The investigators reveal themselves as undercover journalists and promise to release more material (part two) detailing ATI employees’ statements. They claim to have recorded Cromwell stating that many comments were her opinion and that she wanted the public not to know about the alleged scheme. - The piece closes with a call for DOJ accountability and an appeal for donations to support ongoing investigative journalism, inviting viewers to stay tuned for future installments. Notable names include Malayne Cromwell (ATI director of contracts), Furmidge Crutchfield (ATI CEO), Scott Deutschman (CDO), and Arien Hart (head of the Susanville Indian Rancheria). The narrative frames ATI as embodying a widespread, under-scrutinized system of pass-through contracts that purportedly prioritize tribal status over actual labor contribution.

An individual manages suppliers and manufacturers for a medical device company within a network, acting as the main point of contact and managing 13 contracts. One company, Bodycoat, based in Europe, was doing titanium machining for knee joints, but the speaker's company took over the process in-house because it was cheaper. Bodycoat is unaware that the speaker's company is pulling out of the deal and still lying to them. The speaker admits that Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) name and prestige are leveraged to get priority and favorable terms from smaller companies. Some suppliers rely heavily on J&J for business, sometimes up to 80%, and face bankruptcy when J&J cuts ties. The speaker feels "gross and slimy" about the situation. New contracts allow for early exits, but sometimes there isn't even a contract. The speaker follows a template and meets with attorneys weekly to ensure they're following the bare minimum legal requirements.

The video presents an undercover investigative report into what the presenters describe as “eight a pass-through” schemes linked to minority-owned small business programs, centering on ATI Government Solutions. The speakers claim that ATI leverages Native American status to win large federal contracts with little competitive bidding, then passes most of the work to subcontractors while keeping the majority of the profits. Key claims and dynamics described: - ATI would do 20% of the work while subcontractors do 80%, enabling ATI to collect a large share of the contract money. A participant states, “So we we do about 20% of the work,” and another confirms, “Correct. Yeah. They’re doing most of work.” - Pass-through arrangements are highlighted as a mechanism where Native American status guarantees automatic wins, with subcontractors bidding in their industry but not being American, thus enabling ATI to win via the Native status. A responder says, “with pass throughs, because you’re Native American, right, if you have… all they do is partner with you. They use their people. They subcontract to them. They became our sub, and it’s an automatic win because of your native American status.” - The program is framed as already well-known in Washington as a “best kept secret,” with claims that “There’s no competition because you’re Native American” and that this system is designed to enrich the prime contractor at the expense of taxpayers. - The investigation identifies ATI as a technology services company obtaining federal contracts for next-generation computing solutions, and asserts ATI benefits from eight(a) tribal status, which is described as heavily favored by federal contracts. - Malayne Cromwell, ATI’s director of contracts, purportedly explains that the company’s native American ownership is what enables the contracts, and discusses pass-throughs as a strategic advantage. A journalist notes that Cromwell told them about pass-throughs and indicated that “pass throughs are a great thing as well.” - The footage asserts ATI’s claimed ownership structure on paper shows 51% Native American ownership, enabling access to set-aside contracts. The video questions whether the Susanville Indian Rancheria actually owns ATI and investigates the role of tribal ownership in practice. A participant explains that “ATI is abiding by this 51% tribal ownership on paper.” - The investigation reveals that ATI’s leadership includes non-Native executives—Furmidge Crutchfield (CEO), his fiancée Marina Mogalyeva (CFO), and Scott Deutschman (CDO)—while the Rancheria appears to have limited involvement in operations. An interviewee claims the tribe is the owner of ATI on paper, but the executives run the company and perform the work. - The reporter notes that the tribal arrangement would facilitate similar schemes for others who seek government contracts, suggesting a model where 51% ownership is held by a tribe “on paper,” while the actual work is done by others. - The discussion cites the 51% rule codified in the Federal Acquisition Regulations as FAR 52.219-14, stating that the prime contractor must do at least 51% of the work. The video alleges ATI may be violating this rule by directing most work to subcontractors. - The investigation references usaspending.gov data showing ATI’s profits rising from about $2 million in 2019 to about $100 million in the current year, and discusses SBA small-business thresholds (net worth, AGI, assets) that prompt Crutchfield to create new entities to stay within “small business” criteria. - The segment mentions a related Pennsylvania case (Cusisis v. US) in which a contractor was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy for fraudulent inducement related to disadvantaged business enterprise schemes, highlighting the legal risk of deception in these arrangements. - The report concludes with a staged reveal of the reporters’ identities and promises forthcoming parts, urging viewers to donate to the Citizen Journalism Foundation and signaling ongoing journalistic accountability efforts. Note: The transcript contains specific names and quotes attributed to individuals involved in ATI and allied entities, as well as investigative claims about ownership structures and regulatory interpretations.

According to Speaker 0, Canada's new prime minister threatened to seize capital from companies not advancing Canada's climate agenda. Speaker 1 stated the goal is for every financial decision to consider climate change, backing companies that are part of the solution and taking capital away from those who are part of the problem. Speaker 0 claims the prime minister is a fan of censorship and threatened American social media platforms, referencing a statement by Speaker 1 that large American online platforms have become seas of hate and are being used by criminals to harm children, and that his government will act. Speaker 0 asserts there is no free speech in Canada and that the prime minister wants to ban social media platforms, shut down dissent, and use the climate crisis as an excuse to steal from businesses and control their means of production. Speaker 0 concludes that while the friendship between the US and Canada will continue, the "free ride" is over.

The transcript documents an undercover investigation into alleged abuses of the SBA’s 8(a) program and related “pass-through” schemes used to obtain federal contracts. The participants discuss a pattern in which a prime contractor, such as ATI Government Solutions, leverages Native American tribal status to win contracts, then largely subcontract the work to others while keeping the majority of the payment. Key points raised: - ATI’s claimed structure: ATI Government Solutions is described as a technology services company that secures hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for federal contracts by exploiting a supposed Native American 8(a) tribal ownership. The program is presented as heavily favoring firms with Native American status, enabling ATI to win contracts with little or no bidding. - Pass-throughs and ownership: A recurring claim is that ATI uses pass-through arrangements to funnel contracts to subcontractors, with the majority of the actual work performed by those subcontractors and ATI taking a large share of the profits. The conversation indicates ATI does about 20% of the work itself, with 80% subcontracted, and that “pass-throughs” enable non-Native contractors to win through ATI’s Native status. - On-paper 51% ownership: The group cites the 51% rule (the prime contractor must perform at least 51% of the work), yet asserts that ATI is 51% tribal-owned on paper while performing little actual work, raising questions about the true ownership and control of the company. - Suspected real ownership and control: The investigation uncovers that ATI’s leadership is not Native American, and that two Caucasian executives, Furmidge Crutchfield (CEO) and Scott Deutschman (CDO), with associates, allegedly manage operations. The conversation suggests the Susanville Indian Rancheria’s ownership is largely on paper, with the tribe appearing to own the entity for show while the executives run the day-to-day business. - Drama of the “secret”: The participants emphasize that the Native ownership is treated as a secret and a supposed competitive advantage that should remain undisclosed, highlighting a culture of secrecy around the arrangements. - Specific individuals and roles: Malayne Cromwell (ATI’s director of contracts) is presented as confirming many of these practices, including the reliance on pass-throughs and that the stake held by the tribe is 51% on paper. Arian Hart (head of the Susanville Indian Rancheria) discusses how a tribal ownership appearance could be arranged to facilitate contract access, including potentially relinquishing 51% ownership. - Real-world implications: The dialogue frames these schemes as defrauding taxpayers and undermining the communities the programs are meant to uplift, with the 51% rule being exploited to obtain contracts while the workforce bears the bulk of the labor costs. - Legal context and examples: The report references the federal regulations (FAR 52.219-14, the limitations of subcontracting) and cites a related case (Cusisis v. US) to illustrate consequences of deceptive practices in similar contexts. - Growth and lifecycle: The investigation notes ATI’s profits rising from about $2,000,000 in 2019 to $100,000,000 in the current year, suggesting mechanisms to evade size standards by creating new entities to re-enter the 8(a) program when nearing small-business thresholds. - Call to accountability: The reporters reveal themselves as investigative journalists and promise to publish part two, asserting the need for Department of Justice action and accountability for the practices described. They urge donors to support Citizen Journalism Foundation and announce related events. Overall, the transcript portrays an undercover exposé alleging that ATI and connected entities exploit 8(a) and pass-through mechanisms to win contracts, avoid full competition, and divert most work to subcontractors while the owning tribe and executive leaders benefit financially, with the supposed tribal ownership maintained primarily on paper.

The speaker asks a series of yes or no questions to determine the qualifications of Speaker 1. Speaker 1 admits to not having experience in creating or balancing a budget, acquiring or selling a business, raising capital, providing quarterly reports to shareholders, choosing health insurance plans for employees, dealing with workers' compensation, filing taxes for a business, complying with federal regulations, or having their business model threatened by government regulations. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's understanding of corporations based on a comment made in 2005, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a clear answer.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

Speaker 0 asks how many staff work at GC Strategies. Speaker 1 responds that they have 2 employees but outsource finance and legal. Speaker 0 asks about app programming or design, to which Speaker 1 says they do not do that. Speaker 0 clarifies Speaker 1's role in IT contracts with the government and bringing in individuals that the government doesn't have access to. Speaker 0 mentions the $54 million ArriveCAN app and asks if it's under RCMP investigation. Speaker 1 says they are not aware of any investigation. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's work with Bockler and the amount of money made from government contracts, but Speaker 1 doesn't have the exact numbers. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not having basic details about their work. Speaker 1 apologizes and offers to provide the information later. Speaker 0 asks how much Speaker 1 was paid for ArriveCAN, but Speaker 1 doesn't have the exact amount. Speaker 0 suggests $9 million, but Speaker 1 disputes it. Speaker 1 mentions that the number is publicized in the media and estimates it to be between 15% and 30% of that amount. Speaker 0 finds it interesting that Speaker 1 is not willing to share the exact number considering the amount of work not done on the app and the money collected.

The speaker states their remarks were impromptu, without a teleprompter. They deny using a media consultant, saying they just thought about what to say and spoke off the cuff. When asked about being "all in," the speaker confirms they are in the deep end, describing it as "fun." They acknowledge the possibility of "vengeance" in the "unlikely event" of a loss. The speaker states they are a major government contractor doing "essential work." They claim their product is better and costs less, allowing them to compete for and win contracts.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about payments made through GC Strategies and their relationship with Mr. Firth. Speaker 1 states they are not friends with Mr. Firth and have only met him a few times. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 trusted Mr. Firth for an important project, mentioning the expensive cost and illegal detainment of Canadians. Speaker 0 also mentions allegations of lying and rule-breaking, leading to an RCMP investigation. Speaker 1 admits that Mr. Firth was not honest, but is unsure about the others. Speaker 0 requests a detailed written explanation of their dishonesty. Speaker 1 agrees to provide it within 72 hours.

The senator questions the speaker about their firm's client selection policy, specifically regarding their clients who are state-owned Chinese corporations. The speaker defends their rigorous selection process and claims to primarily work with multinational and private sector companies. However, the senator highlights that the firm has advised state-owned enterprises involved in activities contrary to US security interests. The speaker denies advising these specific companies but fails to provide satisfactory answers. The senator criticizes the firm for making substantial profits from both US enemies and the American taxpayer. The senator proposes a law to prohibit such activities and vows to push for a vote on it.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

A federal consulting group within the Department of Interior managed contracts for various agencies. One contract was for $830 million to conduct surveys. The surveys were simple, consisting of 10 questions on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, easily created by a child or AI. This contract was stopped after the inauguration. The speaker stated that the contract was a fraud.

Two individuals who ran a company with no other employees were hired by the government to do no IT work. Instead, they subcontracted the work and received over $11,000,000 for themselves. The government's decision to hire these middlemen who did not perform any IT work is questionable. The speaker questions why government officials thought it was a good idea to give such a large sum to these individuals. The response from Speaker 1 suggests that the hiring was done through a standing offer or supply arrangement. The speaker further highlights the absurdity of the situation, wondering why any two Canadians couldn't do the same. The lack of knowledge regarding who made the decision to hire these individuals is mentioned, with an ongoing investigation by the RCMP.

The speakers discuss identifying and addressing fraud and waste in government payment systems, where there is often no clear accounting of where the money goes. One speaker uses "Big Balls" as a LinkedIn username to signal risk-taking. Team members have faced hostility, including email threats and effigy hangings, for their work. One member dropped out of Harvard to contribute, citing the greater impact of this work. They emphasize their intense work ethic and dedication. They also highlight the collaboration with government employees who are eager for reform and express gratitude to those helping reduce waste and fraud. They stress that many government employees are dedicated and want to improve systems, and they are providing the tools and collaboration to empower them. Conflict is the exception, not the rule.

The speakers agree the current system is "pretty bad," and Speaker 1 attributes this to a lack of competition, stating the government has a monopoly on governing. Speaker 1 clarifies they are not advocating for privatizing government. The speakers then discuss corruption, with Speaker 0 stating they know some individuals involved. They then consider focusing on incompetency and waste instead of fraud. Speaker 0 agrees there is waste in the system.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the implications of AI in military use. They consider whether consumer AI is being bypassed with a secure, military-specific platform that would be sealed—essentially one-way in and no information out—for the Pentagon and military services. The key questions raised are: who controls the AI, who informs its algorithms, and who gives it its orders on how to answer questions, highlighting concerns about privatization and outsourcing of war. Speaker 1 argues that the future of war with AI hinges on two issues: ownership of AI platforms and the sources of their programming. They note that AI can deflect or defer to institutional structures rather than empirical accuracy, raising concerns about the reliability of information provided to military personnel. They also reference the myth that advancing technology automatically reduces civilian harm, citing that precision-guided munitions were designed for efficiency, not necessarily to prevent civilian casualties, noting that the intent was to reduce the number of bombs needed to achieve targets. The conversation shifts to the concept of precision in weapons. Speaker 1 points out that laser- and GPS-guided bombs were not primarily invented to minimize civilian casualties but to increase efficiency. They mention the small diameter bomb as an example, explaining that its use increases the number of bombs that can be deployed rather than primarily limiting collateral damage. The discussion then moves to real-world AI systems used in conflict zones. Speaker 1 cites Israeli programs—Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy?—as examples of nefarious and insidious AI in war. Lavender supposedly scans the Internet and other databases to identify targets, for example flagging someone as a Hamas supporter based on years of activity. Where’s Daddy? allegedly guides Israeli drones to strike fighters when they are with their families, not away from them. This reporting is linked to coverage from Israeli media and Nine Seven Two magazine, and Speaker 2 references Tucker Carlson’s coverage of these issues. Speaker 2 amplifies the point by noting the emotional impact of such capabilities, arguing that targeting men when they are with their children is particularly disturbing. They also discuss broader political reactions, including a remark attributed to Ambassador Huckabee about Israel not attacking Qatar but “sending a missile there” that injured nearby people. Speaker 1 concludes by invoking Orwell’s reflection on the Spanish Civil War, suggesting that those who cheer for war may be confronted by the consequences when modern aircraft enable distant bombing. They emphasize the need to make the costs of war felt by the ruling classes who benefit from it, not just the people on the ground.

The speaker says they are aligned with Elon's actions and that moving fast is necessary to overcome vested interests. Within a ten-mile radius, 25% of the US GDP pulsates, and everyone wants to "skim a little." Elon believes he's moving the American people's cheese, not someone else's. Changes cause people to come after Elon and the administration, and the benefits of cuts aren't immediately visible, creating a perception challenge. The speaker clarifies that it's the Department of Government Efficiency, not extinction, aiming to improve government operations without demonizing federal employees. Two significant savings will come from cutting contractors. One organization, Booz Allen, receives 98% of its revenue from the government, indicating a risk management failure and entrenched interests. Despite a six-month contract limit, some individuals have been in place for twenty years through repeated contracts. The administration's transparency in exposing this "grift" is crucial for taxpayers to understand the extent of the issue.

Speaker 0 states this is the most important election in most of their lifetimes. They claim Trump has made unacceptable threats against the economy, workers, and sovereignty. They believe a particular leader can address these issues and needs support. Speaker 1 accuses Catherine McKenna of losing track of 20,000 contracts worth $236,000,000,000, which they claim is why she is no longer in parliament. Speaker 1 repeats the accusation and insults Speaker 0. Speaker 1 continues to harass Catherine, repeating the $236,000,000,000 figure and using abusive language. Speaker 1 then states that everyone is "fucking retarded."

A company that never had federal government contracts suddenly received a billion dollars for IT, even though it doesn't do IT and has only 4 employees in a basement cottage headquarters. The speaker questions why this suspicious company started getting contracts exactly 21 days after the prime minister took office. The prime minister's response is that the relevant authorities need to investigate the situation. Meanwhile, the focus on the government's side is on making life more affordable for Canadians, such as attracting healthcare workers, forgiving student loans for rural doctors and nurses, and accelerating housing construction. The conservative party is blocking these initiatives, but the government will continue to support Canadians.

The transcript centers on an undercover investigation into alleged eight(a) pass-through schemes used to secure federal contracts, focusing on ATI Government Solutions and its connections to Native American ownership arrangements. - ATI, described as a technology services company, allegedly acquires hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars for federal contracts and benefits from a supposed Native American eight(a) tribal status. The program is said to favor Native American–owned small businesses in obtaining contracts. - A key claim is that ATI acts as a pass-through, with the prime contractor (ATI) doing only a small portion of the work and subcontracting the majority to other firms. Specifically, Malayne Cromwell states that ATI “would often do as little as 20% of the actual software development work and offload 80% of the work to their subcontractors,” with ATI “sitting back, collecting my percentage, and they do the work.” - The 51% rule is repeatedly cited: the prime contractor on a government contract must do at least 51% of the work. The investigation alleges ATI complies on paper with “51% on paper,” while the actual work is done by subcontractors. The RFI notes that the limitations of subcontracting clause FAR 52.219-14 requires the prime to perform at least 51% of the work. - The investigation describes “pass-throughs” as a mechanism whereby a non-Native company bids on a contract but partners with ATI, using ATI’s Native status to win, and then subcontracts the work to the non-Native company. The transcript states: “a lot of our subcontractors bid on contracts that were perfect in their industry, but because they weren’t American, they wouldn’t win it. We bid on it for them. They became our sub, and it's an automatic win because of the government set aside.” - There is a claim of “no bidding war” and that contracts are obtained due to Native status, with “pass-throughs” described as a “secret” and “best kept secret.” - The investigation identifies specific individuals tied to ATI and the tribal arrangement. Malayne Cromwell is identified as ATI’s director of contracts who explains the pass-through process and claims that “51% on paper” is sufficient for eligibility. The Susanville Indian Rancheria appears as the listed Native ownership on paper, but the investigation reveals that ATI was founded in collaboration with the Rancheria by two Caucasian executives, Furmidge Crutchfield (CEO) and Scott Deutschman (CDO), who supposedly manage operations. Cromwell asserts that ATI abides by the 51% tribal ownership on paper, while the leaders who actually run ATI are non-Native. - The tribal entity’s role is described as largely non-operational: “the tribe itself will not be doing any of the work. They would literally be taking 51% of the company for the sole purpose of allowing us to pose as Native American owned because it puts you to the front of the line for acquiring those government contracts.” - The investigation cites the growth of ATI’s profits from about $2,000,000 in 2019 to $100,000,000 in 2024, per usaspending.gov, and explains a pattern of creating new companies to stay under small-business thresholds as profits rise. - The report references a related case, Cusisis v. US, where a company was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy for misrepresenting DBE status in Pennsylvania, highlighting the potential legal consequences of deceptive eight(a) practices. - The piece concludes with the investigators stating they recorded statements that allegedly show pressuring for secrecy and urging quiet about the alleged schemes, and they announce part two of the story. They call on the Department of Justice to act and invite donations to support their journalism. They also mention an upcoming Citizen Journalism Foundation event.

Speaker 0 states they want Black businesses to survive and thrive and claims to do a ton for them. They cite their work with the Department of Transportation under Pete Buttigieg, saying they tried to insulate Black businesses from a "crazy regime" to ensure they could still get contracts for infrastructure projects. Speaker 0 also claims to have a great relationship with Black businesses in their community and works with the Black chamber of business. They invite Speaker 1's organization to join, but say they have to go and suggest calling their office. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of not having time for Black people and running away. Speaker 0 responds that they always have time, but the conversation is becoming too hostile, and they don't want to "pop off."

Speaker 1, the minister of finance and deputy prime minister, clarifies that it is not their responsibility to designate who is a terrorist. They explain that there are authorities specifically assigned to handle such tasks. Speaker 0 mentions a meeting with Dave from CSIS, where they discuss the need to designate a group as terrorists. However, Speaker 1 reiterates that it is not their role to make that designation.

Speaker 1 expresses disgust and appall at Speaker 2, the president of a company, for investigating legislators. Speaker 1 states the investigation was to gain leverage for billion-dollar contracts and questions the legality of the actions, suggesting the attorney general investigate. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of gathering information with the intent to use it against legislators doing their jobs. Speaker 2 claims the investigations were to gain general knowledge about individuals they might meet with and their interests. Speaker 1 challenges this explanation, suggesting Speaker 2 is avoiding the question due to a lawsuit, and defends the legislators as colleagues and family, deeming the actions despicable.

A host confronts a guest whose company provides activists for hire. The host asserts the company pays actors to hold signs and protest, showing a video of a man who doesn't know why he's protesting. The guest claims they provide engaged activists and that compensating people is necessary to ensure sufficient turnout, similar to how the host is compensated for his show. The host objects to companies staging events and hiring people to make scenes appear larger than they are, arguing that activism should be organic. He believes such practices stir up conflict and distort the true scale of issues. He expresses his dislike for the guest's business.