New Election, Same Old Tactics | How The DOJ smears TENET Media

As the 2024 election approaches, the DOJ revives its tired Russian interference narrative, targeting TENET Media in a smear campaign aimed at discrediting right-leaning independent voices.

A Note for you,

Hey there, and thank you for your patience! I know I teased this a few times on Instagram, and yes, it's probably a week later than expected. But as a one-woman show, it takes time to dive deep into research and deliver the kind of in-depth article you're about to read.

I want to continue creating more content like this—and keeping it free for everyone—because breaking through the legacy media narrative is crucial. That said, it does take time and resources. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support more deep dives like this one. There’s even a 30% discount on an annual subscription waiting for you with just a click.

Thank you again for sticking with me and for being part of this journey!

---

Whenever a whiff of breaking news can amplify a political agenda, it doesn’t take long for legacy media and their supporters to quickly create a narrative that aligns with their political motives. And what is more enticing to the legacy media and their Democrat counterparts than Russian interference? Two weeks ago, AG Merrick Garland held a press conference announcing the indictment of two Russian nationals, Constantine Kalashnikov and Elena Afanaseva, who allegedly worked with Russia Today (RT). He ran an operation designed to bolster and fund a network of major right-leaning news and political content networks with $10 million. The indictment alleges that the Russian nationals violated FARA and money laundering.

The indictment also made a weak attempt to conceal the network's name, founders, and commentators. Still, it took internet sleuth little effort to unmask the network as TENET Media, owned and operated by conservative commentator Lauren Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan, who were not indicted. According to the indictment, TENET produced videos "consistent with the Government of Russia 's interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition to core Government of Russia interests, such as its ongoing war in Ukraine."

The commentators caught up in this operation were some of the largest voices in right-leaning independent media, such as Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson. And I say "caught up" because the indictment itself says that the commentators deceived Chen and the Russian nationals, indirectly assigning guilt to Chen and her husband. Still, again, they were not indicted along with the Russian nationals.

A Transparent Attempt at Concealment?

Before diving deeper into this case, let me be clear: I'm no fan of Lauren Chen. I've followed her for years, and honestly, many of her talking points have grown increasingly annoying to me. So, this isn't some defense of Chen. But despite my personal opinion, the facts matter, and the way this indictment is being handled raises serious concerns.

Another aspect of this indictment that raises serious questions is the DOJ’s so-called effort to conceal the identities of TENET Media, its founders, and the commentators involved. The indictment only names the two Russian nationals, Kalashnikov and Afanaseva, while referring to TENET Media as "U.S. Company-1" and Lauren Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan, as "Founder-1" and "Founder-2." On paper, this seems like a standard legal maneuver to protect individuals who weren’t charged with any crimes and, ostensibly, to avoid casting guilt by association. But if that was truly the intent, it was a spectacular failure—or perhaps it was never the intent at all.

It took internet sleuths and journalists all of five minutes to connect the dots and unmask TENET Media and the commentators involved, revealing the very names the DOJ claimed to be shielding. TENET Media isn’t some obscure startup; it openly describes itself as "a network of heterodox commentators that focus on Western political and cultural issues"—a description easily found on its website. The site prominently features popular right-leaning figures like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, Lauren Southern, Matt Christensen, and Tayler Hansen. So, was this really an attempt to protect the innocent or something else?

Given how poorly disguised this information was, one can’t help but wonder: Did the DOJ actually want these people exposed? The sheer amount of detail included in the indictment about the company and the commentators makes it seem like they were daring someone to figure it out. If the goal was truly to protect those not charged, this sloppy concealment certainly didn’t do them any favors. In fact, it feels more like a strategic unmasking—a way to drag these right-leaning voices through the mud by association without ever having to charge them with a crime.

If this was simply about investigating Russian interference, why make it so easy for the public—and the media—to identify who’s involved? By not formally charging Chen, her husband, or the commentators but allowing their names to be revealed in the public eye, the DOJ has successfully planted the seed of guilt without needing to prove anything. It’s a clever move—one that feeds perfectly into the media narrative that right-leaning independent voices are somehow part of a foreign conspiracy.

And if you’re thinking, "Meseidy, it’s been two weeks, and no one is talking about this anymore," my response is that it sometimes takes me a bit to pull a post like this together. As you will see shortly, the situation is more complicated than the media would have you believe. Also, people are still discussing it. Hilary Rodham Clinton, often dubbed the queen of "Russian interference" allegations, is currently on a promotional tour for her fourth memoir—who freaking needs four memoirs!—and on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, she suggested that commentators from TENET media should potentially face civil or even criminal charges.

It’s almost as if the DOJ handed the Democrats a jucy talking point to discredit and potentially civil or criminally charge right-leaning independent media just before an election because remember that AG Garland said that this investigation is ongoing.

History of "Russian interference"

This isn’t the first time allegations of Russian election interference have surfaced just before a major election cycle—and the similarities are striking. Do we remember 2016, when BuzzFeed News published the infamous Steele dossier, filled with unverified claims that dominated the headlines? It was later revealed that this document, which ignited years of investigation into Donald Trump’s alleged connections to Russia, was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign—this was before she went on to write a third memoir—and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Despite the absence of concrete evidence, this narrative was enough to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump’s former adviser, Carter Page. Although no charges ever resulted from this investigation, the impact was significant, fueling years of partisan division and skepticism over the election’s legitimacy.

Fast forward to 2020, and the same playbook appeared to be in motion. When the New York Post uncovered a trove of potentially damaging information on Hunter Biden’s laptop, linking him and potentially Joe Biden to unethical financial dealings, the immediate response was to discredit the story by labeling it as Russian disinformation. This accusation came not from evidence but from a letter signed by 51 former U.S. intelligence officials—spearheaded by now-Secretary of State Anthony Blinken—who suggested the laptop had the "hallmarks" of a Russian operation. The wild part is that the FBI already had the laptop in their possession. They knew it was not part of a "hack-and-dump" Russian operation. However, the intelligence officials claimed it was a Russian operation. Big tech restricted coverage on social media, even blocking the New York Post and U.S. Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany from their Twitter accounts. This helped protect the Biden campaign from serious scrutiny as voters headed to the polls.

In both instances, the narrative of Russian interference was a perfectly timed political tool—used to cast doubt on Trump and right-leaning media while bolstering left-leaning candidates or shielding them from damaging revelations.

We come to the present day and the 2024 election, witnessing a similar pattern. The DOJ’s indictment of Russian nationals linked to a conservative media network has handed legacy media and Democrats the perfect pre-election narrative to discredit independent right-leaning voices. Even though none of the commentators involved were charged and were described as victims in the case, the timing of the indictment—just months before another election—raises serious questions about whether we are once again witnessing a calculated effort to set the stage for censor right-leaning media, influence the public narrative and control the flow of information leading up to election day.

I will explain the suspicious timing of the indictment and present a case that raises questions about whether it’s a legitimate case of foreign interference or yet another strategic attempt to influence our election from within.

The Allegations: Russia-Gate 3.0?

The DOJ’s indictment claims that two Russian nationals, Constantine Kalashnikov and Elena Afanaseva, funneled $10 million through a web of foreign shell companies into TENET Media, run by conservative commentator Lauren Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan. From there, the money allegedly made its way to right-wing media figures like Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, and Benny Johnson, supposedly as part of a broader Russian effort to meddle in the 2024 U.S. election by spreading divisive content.

Allegations According to the Indictment

After reviewing the indictment myself, it’s clear that the DOJ is painting a picture of an elaborate, covert operation. Kalashnikov and Afanaseva are said to have funneled the money through these shell companies, with the funds supposedly coming from a "private investor" named Eduard Grigoriann. But here’s the kicker—the indictment claims this investor is entirely fictitious. That’s right, a made-up person. The DOJ alleges that Grigoriann’s involvement was fabricated to trick TENET Media and the commentators into thinking the money was coming from a legitimate source rather than from Russian interests tied to the Kremlin.

Now, if you’re wondering why anyone would go to such lengths to disguise $10 million in funding, it’s because they claim the goal was to push content that aligns with Russian objectives. But here’s where things get really murky.

It's worth mentioning that TENET Media was a start-up, and it had only been up and running for about a year. Start-ups often struggle financially in their early days, and a large portion of the $10 million that allegedly went into TENET was used to pay contributors and cover regular business expenses. Money laundering usually involves hiding illegal funds for personal gain, but here, it looks like the money was spent on legitimate costs, with no one personally benefiting from it. This makes the DOJ's claims of money laundering much weaker, as there was no financial enrichment for anyone involved—something that's typically seen in real money laundering cases.

A Lack of Uniform Messaging

Despite the DOJ's bold claims of a coordinated Russian operation, the indictment itself admits that there was no uniform messaging among the commentators involved. So, if this was supposed to be a carefully orchestrated Russian plot, why weren’t the talking points aligned? Far from being a coordinated campaign, the commentators' messaging was inconsistent and varied. This diversity of content, from foreign policy to domestic issues, suggests independence rather than foreign control. The DOJ’s own admission that the messaging was 'not uniform' undercuts its claims of a coordinated Russian plot.

In fact, the content produced by Rubin, Pool, Johnson, and others varied significantly. Some focused on foreign policy, particularly the U.S. involvement in Ukraine, while others discussed domestic issues like government overreach and Big Tech censorship. So, if this was supposed to be a carefully orchestrated Russian plot, why weren’t the talking points aligned?

Even more revealing is the DOJ's own statement in the affidavit, which claims that while the views in the videos were "not uniform," the content still somehow managed to "amplify U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition to core Government of Russia interests, such as its ongoing war in Ukraine." This is a crazy statement for a couple of reasons.

First, the fact that the messages were all over the place proves there was no real coordination. How can this be a strategic, foreign-backed effort when there wasn’t a consistent message or agenda being pushed? If this were truly an organized operation, you would expect the commentators to be working in lockstep, hammering home the same talking points. But that clearly wasn’t the case here.

Second, the DOJ’s logic essentially boils down to this: any and all opposition to U.S. government policy could be framed as "amplifying domestic divisions." Think about that for a minute. Are we really going to start labeling any criticism of U.S. foreign policy, or any government policy for that matter, as part of a foreign influence operation? Criticizing the government's actions—whether it's questioning U.S. spending on foreign wars or pointing out government mismanagement at home—is not only legitimate but is also a fundamental right in a free society. It’s called freedom of speech.

What’s disturbing here is that the DOJ seems to be using the commentators’ exercise of free speech as evidence against them. By this logic, anyone who questions the government's decisions could be accused of "amplifying divisions" and, by extension, doing the bidding of a foreign adversary. That’s a very slippery slope.

So, the real question is: Is this truly about Russian interference, or is the DOJ stretching to fit a narrative that conveniently targets right-leaning commentators who dare to challenge U.S. policy?

We’ve seen this pattern before—in 2016, 2020, and now again in 2024. Every time, just before a major election, allegations of Russian interference conveniently emerge, casting doubt on right-leaning figures while protecting left-leaning interests. But each time, the evidence has been shaky at best. And this latest indictment? It follows the same playbook.

The DOJ isn’t pointing to clear foreign coordination—they’re using the commentators’ own exercise of free speech as evidence. Criticism of U.S. policy, especially in a time of increasing government overreach, is being twisted into a narrative of foreign interference. So, is this really about protecting democracy, or just another attempt to suppress inconvenient voices before the election?

Like in past election cycles, the media has jumped on a story that casts right-leaning independent voices as pawns in a supposed foreign interference plot, even though there’s no solid evidence to support it. By spreading these unfounded claims, they weaken alternative viewpoints in our public discussions and align perfectly with political strategies leading up to the election. In the end, this focus on narrative isn’t just about pursuing justice; it’s about guiding the conversation as election day gets closer.

Suspicious Timing: A Political Smear Campaign?

Each time we’ve been warned about Russian interference in an election, it started with a seed—a seed planted to sprout just in time to sway public opinion. Now, with just two months until the 2024 election, we see another seed being planted. And the timing could not be more suspicious.

In 2016, it was the infamous Steele dossier, funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, disseminated by the media, and weaponized by the DOJ to justify a FISA warrant against Trump’s campaign associate, Carter Page. That seed bloomed into years of baseless investigations and the first impeachment of a sitting president. It didn’t matter that the Steele dossier was discredited long after the fact—the damage was done.

Fast forward to 2020, and we see the same tactics at play. The FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop for months before it became public, yet they were planting seeds of Russian interference throughout the media and Big Tech. This time, the FBI worked hand in glove with Twitter, Facebook, and key intelligence officials in "tabletop exercises" designed to prepare for a potential "hack-and-dump" operation, not unlike what would later be said about the Hunter Biden laptop. When The New York Post broke the laptop story, the narrative had already taken root: the laptop was dismissed as Russian disinformation, and Big Tech moved swiftly to silence the truth.

Now, just as we’ve seen before, the seeds of a new narrative are being planted. This time, the DOJ has handed down an indictment targeting conservative commentators under the guise of Russian influence. But here’s the question: why now? With two months left before a major election, why drop an indictment that drags right-leaning voices into a dubious foreign interference plot? The pattern is all too familiar.

What’s more troubling is the role of the DOJ. Given their history of politicized legal actions, it’s hard not to ask: Is this just another example of the DOJ being weaponized to suppress dissent? We’ve seen this kind of move before—where the media, backed by key figures in the government, paints anyone critical of the U.S. government as a Russian stooge. These are the same tactics used in 2016 and 2020 to suppress right-leaning voices while shielding left-leaning candidates from scrutiny.

If history is any guide, the timing of this indictment feels like another October surprise in the making. And while the media spins this as a story of Russian interference, the real interference might just be coming from within—another effort to tilt the scales of public opinion by discrediting conservative voices right before election day.

Is this indictment truly about protecting the integrity of our democracy, or is it part of a broader, premeditated strategy to silence dissent and shape the election narrative? Time will tell, but the timing itself speaks volumes.

Who is Lauren Chen?

If you look past the sensationalism surrounding the indictment, it becomes clear that other than the Russian nationals—who, by the way, are safely out of reach in Russia—the central figures in this case are Lauren Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan. But who exactly is Lauren Chen, and how did she become involved in this latest Russian interference scandal?

Lauren Chen first rose to prominence in 2014 under the YouTube moniker "Roaming Millennial", where she focused on cultural commentary and political analysis. Born in Canada, Chen grew up in Hong Kong and Singapore before attending college in the U.S., only to return to Canada to continue her career. She eventually became a commentator on Blaze TV, hosting a show called "Pseudo Intellectual," before deciding to branch out and grow her own independent YouTube channel, now known simply as Lauren Chen. Over the years, she became a contributor to conservative platforms like Turning Point USA and continued her work with Blaze.

Between March 2021 and February 2022, Chen also contributed opinion pieces to RT, focusing on cultural issues, free speech, and critiques of the Canadian government’s increasingly authoritarian policies, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s worth noting that during this time. However, RT was known to be Russian state-run media, it was still allowed to operate in Canada, the UK, and the U.S. at the time, and many journalists contributed to it without facing the stigma that later came after Russia invaded Ukraine and before it became the subject of mass bans across Western media. Chen’s work with RT primarily revolved around cultural commentary, but the indictment highlights her opinion to establish a prior relationship with RT.

Interestingly, her final opinion piece for RT was published just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where she warned of the backlash faced by anti-war voices in the U.S., such as Jill Stein, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tucker Carlson. In that article, she questioned whether accusations of being "unpatriotic" or a "Russian asset" were being used to silence dissent and suppress those who critiqued the rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia. Her critique focused on the military-industrial complex benefiting from war more than U.S. security interests.

While the DOJ tries to paint a picture of collusion between Chen and the Russian nationals indicted, what’s missing is any concrete evidence. The indictment hints that Chen’s professional work with RT and her husband’s brief stint with RT’s German subsidiary, Ruptly GmbH, might suggest some deeper connection with Kalashnikov and Afanaseva. However, it fails to prove anything beyond casual or professional interactions. Sure, Chen’s husband received an email from Kalashnikov while they both worked at Ruptly GmbH, but does an email hint at conspiracy? Or is this just another stretch by the DOJ to tie Chen and Donovan to Russian influence, with little more than a few email threads as "evidence?"

In addition, it's worth remembering that Chen, her husband, and their children are Canadian citizens. Their move to Nashville, Tennessee, was driven more by a desire to escape the harsh COVID lockdowns in Canada than by any political machinations. Their media company, which would later become TENET Media, was incorporated in January 2022, shortly after they arrived in the U.S.—well before Russia invaded Ukraine.

So, why target Chen? Is it really because of her prior work with RT, which ended before the invasion of Ukraine? Or is it because she is a visible, conservative voice questioning the government’s policies and speaking out against military overreach?

It's also worth noting that other foreign-funded media organizations, like AJ+ (part of the Al Jazeera Media Network), operated in the U.S. for years before being required to register under FARA in 2020. Instead of issuing indictments, the U.S. government simply required AJ+ to register, raising the question: Why didn’t the DOJ take the same approach with TENET Media?

Inconsistencies in the Narrative

The indictment names only two Russian nationals, but it's clear that Chen and her husband are key players in this case, even though they haven't been named publicly and aren't facing any charges yet. They might be cooperating with the DOJ, or maybe there just isn't enough evidence against them. The indictment doesn’t clarify how much they knew about the Russian funding, and if they were aware, we don’t know when they found out. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, the Russian nationals are in Russia, and it’s unlikely that the Russian government will send them to the U.S. So, this indictment is actually more effective at discrediting Chen and other commentators than achieving real justice.

Did Chen Know She Was Working with Russians?

The DOJ clearly wants us to believe that Lauren Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan, knew they were accepting money from Russian nationals tied to the Kremlin through their media company, TENET Media. But a closer look at the evidence in the indictment raises serious doubts about that claim. Let’s break down the facts and timeline.

But here’s the real kicker: the sheer amount of detail in the indictment makes it clear that Chen and her business were under surveillance well before anything truly incriminating surfaced. We're talking about private communications, Google searches, and other correspondence, all of which make you wonder: what triggered this surveillance? Many are speculating that the feds might have used a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant—just like they did in 2016 with Trump’s campaign adviser, Carter Page.

Now, for those who don’t know, FISA warrants let the government spy on U.S. citizens if they’re suspected of being foreign agents. The problem? These warrants are issued behind closed doors with little oversight, making it way too easy for the government to abuse them. Remember, in 2016, the FBI used the now-debunked Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page. That investigation dragged on for years without producing anything solid, but the damage was done. FISA abuse has become a favorite tool for federal agencies to keep tabs on political opponents, especially when they can slap on the "foreign influence" label.

And here we are again, watching the same pattern unfold. The feds were likely watching Chen long before there was any legitimate reason to do so. So, was FISA used to target yet another conservative media figure? It sure looks that way. This is just more of the same: the federal government overreaching and using secretive powers to go after people who dare to speak out. Whether or not a FISA warrant was officially used, the fact that Chen’s private information was accessed this early raises serious questions about what’s really going on behind the scenes.

Grigoriann Makes Contact

According to the indictment, Chen first came into contact with Eduard Grigoriann in December 2022, a supposed investor looking to fund her new media venture. However, the DOJ claims that Grigoriann was nothing more than a fake identity used by Constantine Kalashnikov and Elena Afanaseva, both of whom worked for RT. At this point, there’s no indication that Chen knew anything about this deception.

Her communications with Grigoriann were facilitated by three representatives—Persona-1, Persona-2, and Persona-3—who continued to play along with the illusion of legitimacy.

Chen was hired to help build this new venture, initially called Viewpoint Productions, and began recruiting high-profile commentators like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin for the platform. Rubin recently revealed in an interview with Megyn Kelly that he participated in a Zoom call with a man who identified himself as Eduard Grigoriann. The call was coordinated by Chen, seemingly to provide Rubin with more transparency about the investor. Given Chen and Rubin’s decade-long relationship, it would be incredibly sinister for her to knowingly facilitate a call with someone she knew was a fraud. The fact that she arranged this meeting strongly suggests she herself was in the dark about Grigoriann’s true identity, not part of any coordinated deception.

Interestingly, the indictment does not mention this Zoom call. This raises serious questions, especially considering the fact that the DOJ clearly had access to private communications between Chen and her husband, as evidenced by the numerous messages cited in the indictment. If the feds were surveilling their conversations, why wasn’t this call included? Rubin’s revelation suggests that there was more communication happening than what the indictment presents, and it raises the possibility that Chen herself may have had a Zoom call with this individual, further supporting the idea that she was also being deceived. If Chen believed Grigoriann was a legitimate investor, as Rubin did, it becomes even less likely that she knew she was dealing with operatives tied to RT, as the DOJ alleges.

When Pool and Rubin pressed for more information about Grigoriann, Chen conducted a Google search for his name, but no relevant results were found. This was in April 2023, which shows that Chen herself wasn’t sure about the legitimacy of this "investor." If she had known Grigoriann’s true identity, this step would have been unnecessary.

A Timeline of Doubts

The indictment paints a picture of deliberate collusion, but let’s break down the actual timeline:

• March 2021 - February 2022: Chen had previously worked with RT, writing opinion pieces and producing content. The DOJ uses this to imply that she must have had deeper ties to Russia. But remember, her work with RT ended before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and at the time, RT was still operating legally in countries like the U.S., UK, and Canada. Just because she worked with RT doesn’t mean she was aware of any Russian involvement in her new media venture.

• December 2022: Chen first started working with the fake "Grigoriann" and his representatives. The DOJ offers no evidence that she had any reason to suspect these individuals were connected to the Russian state at this point.

• April 2023: Chen’s first possible indication of Russian involvement came when Persona-1 informed her that a "Russian firm" would be handling the management of the social media accounts for her new platform. She responded by saying she was "happy to work with the Russian firm", but at this stage, it’s unclear whether she knew this firm was actually run by Kalishnikov and Afanaseva. The DOJ wants us to jump to conclusions here, but again, there’s no solid evidence that she understood the full extent of the Russian connection.

• April 21, 2023: After being pressed by Rubin for more information on Grigoriann, Chen turned to Google. If she had known who Grigoriann really was, why would she need to search for him online? This indictment points to the idea that Chen was beginning to have doubts about her investors. However, the claims made by the DOJ are mainly based on circumstantial evidence. Even though Chen might have questioned her investors, there’s no proof that she was aware of any connections to Russian state actors or that she did anything wrong. The timeline shows that she gradually noticed something wasn’t right, but it doesn’t definitively prove that she was involved in any larger plot.

• May 2023: In private communications with her husband, Chen referred to their "investors" as the "Russians." The DOJ is quick to seize on this, trying to claim that Chen knew she was dealing with Russian state actors. But using the term the"Russians" doesn’t automatically mean she knew she was involved with Kremlin operatives. It’s just as plausible that she was referring to the nationality of the investors without fully understanding their political affiliations.

  

• September 2023: By this point, Chen seemed aware that some of her contacts were based in Moscow, as evidenced by her looking up the time there before sending an email. Even then, the indictment offers no proof that she knew "Grigoriann" was a made-up identity or that Kalishnikov and Afanaseva were the real people behind her investors.

Happy to Work with a Russian Firm?

The indictment also points to a message from Chen in April 2023, where she said she was "happy to work with the Russian firm."​ But let’s put that in context. By then, she knew some parts of her business had connections to Russia, but did she know this meant she was working with state actors tied to the Kremlin? There’s no clear evidence that she did. The indictment makes a lot of leaps, but it never quite lands on solid ground.

Should Chen Have Known?

The DOJ’s case here is built on speculation and inference, not concrete proof. It’s easy to latch onto phrases like the "Russians" and paint a picture of conspiracy, but the actual timeline shows something different. At most, Chen might have grown suspicious in 2023 after repeated inquiries from commentators like Rubin, but there’s little to suggest she knowingly worked with Russian state actors from the start.

Once again, the DOJ seems more focused on creating an impression of guilt through vague associations rather than providing a clear-cut case. So, did Lauren Chen know she was working with Russians? The evidence says no.

Commentators Unaware of the Alleged Deception

The DOJ’s indictment goes to great lengths to argue that Russian state actors Afanasyeva and Kalashnikov had direct influence over the content produced on TENET Media. But a closer look at what’s actually presented raises serious doubts about how much influence was really exerted—and whether the commentators themselves were even aware of it.

The DOJ's Flimsy Claims of Influence

The DOJ points to a few specific examples that supposedly show how Afanasyeva, under the alias "Helena Shudra," directed TENET’s content. But when you look closer, the evidence falls apart:

• The Grocery Store Video: In February 2024, Afanasyeva suggested posting a video of a U.S. commentator visiting a grocery store in Russia. One of TENET’s producers expressed concern, calling it "overt shilling." But according to the indictment, Lauren Chen’s husband, Liam Donovan, thought it was a good idea, and the video was posted.

• The Moscow Terrorist Attack: In March 2024, Afanasyeva pushed for a video covering a terrorist attack in Moscow. The initial footage had a watermark, so Chen’s team found an alternative and posted it. Afanasyeva then suggested that Commentator-3 (likely Matt Christensen) cover the attack from a specific angle—implying that Ukraine, not ISIS, was responsible for the attack. The indictment implies that Christensen agreed to cover this, but it conveniently ignores the fact that other major outlets, including PBS, were already reporting on the same possibility.

• Direct Posting: By June 2024, Afanasyeva and Kalashnikov were allegedly given "unfettered access" to TENET’s social media accounts, posting directly without needing approval from U.S. Company-1 staff.

Let’s Break This Down

The DOJ is clearly trying to sell the idea that Afanasyeva and Kalashnikov were calling the shots, but none of these examples are the smoking gun they’d like them to be.

• The Grocery Store Video: The video was viral across multiple platforms at the time, not just on TENET. It was being shared everywhere. So, was TENET really pushing some Kremlin-backed narrative, or were they just posting something that was already trending?

• The Moscow Attack: The suggestion that Ukraine was responsible wasn’t unique to Afanasyeva. Reputable outlets like PBS were already discussing it. And Christensen, known for his critical stance on the Ukraine war long before he joined TENET, likely agreed to cover the story because it aligned with his own views—not because he was taking orders from a Russian operative.

• Unfettered Access?: The indictment claims that Afanasyeva and Kalashnikov had free rein to post directly on TENET’s accounts by mid-2024. But here's the thing: the DOJ doesn’t give us a single example of what content they posted. If this was such a major breach, shouldn’t the indictment provide at least one example of the "Russian messaging" they supposedly put out? Without concrete examples, it’s hard to take this claim seriously.

The Commentators Were in the Dark

Even more interesting is that the DOJ itself acknowledges that the commentators—big names like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson—had no idea about the alleged Russian funding. If these commentators didn’t know where the money was coming from, how exactly was this an effective foreign interference campaign?

Tim Pool’s involvement with TENET was limited to licensing his 'Culture War' show, which he and his team fully produced. Dave Rubin created a few short reaction videos before moving on, and every commentator who has spoken out has made it clear that they were never directed on what to say or cover. Even Tayler Hansen, the only known personality directly employed by TENET, said he had full editorial control over his work.

Tayler Hansen, the only publicly known employee of TENET, previously worked as an independent reporter. He was known for capturing the shooting of Ashley Babbitt, putting him on the DOJ’s radar and, for a time, on the same secret no-fly list that Tulsi Gabbard was placed on. In an interview with Viva Frei, he consistently stated that he was never directed on what to cover or how to report, maintaining full editorial discretion over his content.

So, What Was Actually Posted?

If Afanasyeva and Kalashnikov really had "unfettered access" to TENET’s platform, why doesn’t the DOJ provide any examples of the supposed content they posted? If this was a coordinated effort to push Russian propaganda, you’d think they’d have concrete evidence of it. But all we get are vague references to social media access with no specifics on what was posted or how it diverged from TENET’s usual content.

A Weak Case for Influence

The DOJ wants to paint a picture of Russian control over TENET Media, but the examples they provide don’t hold water. The content shared was either already viral, widely covered by other outlets, or aligned with the commentators’ pre-existing views. And since the commentators themselves had no knowledge of the Russian connection, it’s hard to believe this was a well-coordinated plot to influence U.S. elections.

The indictment tries to connect dots that just don’t add up, leaving us with more questions than answers about the true extent of any "foreign influence" on TENET Media.

Conclusion

In a rush to assign guilt, the media has been more than eager to link the commentators in this case to some grand Russian conspiracy, despite the fact that the indictment clearly states they are not guilty of any wrongdoing. The DOJ’s sloppy attempt at concealing their identities only makes it look like they wanted these right-leaning voices dragged through the mud. It’s hard not to think this was intentional.

The double standard here is glaring. While the DOJ goes after TENET Media, other foreign-funded outlets like AJ+—funded by Qatar, a country that also happens to hide the leadership of Hamas—have been allowed to operate in the U.S. for years without consequence. Where’s the indictment for AJ+? Why does the DOJ let Qatar off the hook but not Russia? The selective enforcement is blatant, and it raises serious questions about why certain foreign actors get a pass while others do not.

Then there’s the fact that we may never know if these Russian nationals even worked for RT, as the DOJ claims. The Russians indicted are safely in Russia and will never face justice in a U.S. courtroom. Was this really an RT operation? Did this mysterious "Eduard Grigoriann" ever exist? Who was on that Zoom call with the commentators? These are questions we may never get answers to because the key figures are beyond the reach of U.S. law. So, what does this indictment really achieve? It discredits and damages the reputations of influential right-leaning voices in independent media while the real culprits, if they even exist, remain untouched.

We’re also left with more questions than answers, especially since Lauren Chen and her husband have gone radio silent. Are they cooperating? Have they struck a deal? No one knows, but the silence speaks volumes. And truthfully, I have no idea if Chen and her husband knew they were being funded by the Russian state. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t—but there are a lot of unanswered questions. From where I stand, the evidence is weak for anyone to be jumping to absolute conclusions. What I do see is more of a campaign to discredit these commentators than any serious effort to prosecute Russian operatives.

In the aftermath of the indictment, Lauren Chen lost all of her YouTube channels, including one that focused solely on movie and television reviews, which had nothing to do with politics. Tayler Hansen, the only known TENET employee, also lost his personal YouTube channel, despite the fact that it wasn’t affiliated with TENET at all. Even TENET’s YouTube channel was pulled. Hansen, the smallest of the TENET-affiliated creators, was hit the hardest, while the bigger names like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin managed to keep their channels—perhaps because they were independent contractors or, more likely, because their size offered them some protection.

It’s also worth pointing out that this level of surveillance—likely initiated through a FISA warrant—started long before anything incriminating surfaced. Once again, the feds seem to be playing fast and loose with the rules, spying on independent media figures without clear justification. And for what? The Russians involved in this scheme are safely in Russia and unlikely to face any consequences. So, what does this indictment actually accomplish? All it really does is smear and discredit some of the most influential voices in right-leaning independent media.

The DOJ’s argument that this disjointed, non-unified messaging somehow amounts to Russian propaganda is absurd. What they’re really doing is using free speech—the very thing these commentators have a right to—as evidence against them. It’s a dangerous precedent, especially since AG Garland has already made it clear that this is still an open investigation. What’s next? Will they try to indict others? It’s not hard to imagine the DOJ using this as a stepping stone to further crackdown on dissenting voices.

The real danger here is how the media, instead of questioning the motives behind this indictment, has latched onto a convenient narrative. They’re quick to attack these independent creators but unwilling to dig deeper and dissect what’s really going on. Criticizing the U.S. government or opposing its policies doesn’t automatically make you a Russian sympathizer, no matter how badly the media and leftist commentators want to paint it that way.

Let me be clear: opposing the war in Ukraine because you don’t believe in unlimited spending on a never-ending proxy war doesn’t make someone a puppet of Russia. It’s called freedom of speech. You can think Putin is a dictatorial piece of trash and still believe that our endless funding of this war is a drain on American resources and priorities. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

And perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that people like Hillary Clinton are out there advocating for criminal or civil prosecution of these commentators for simply exercising their right to free speech. It’s disgusting. We should all be alarmed at how quickly free speech is being turned into a weapon to silence those who dare to challenge the prevailing narrative.