Who paid the
independent voices?

Who was charged, and who was not

The September 2024 indictment charged two RT employees, Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva. The charges were conspiracy to violate FARA and conspiracy to commit money laundering.2 An indictment is an accusation. The defendants are presumed innocent unless convicted.

DOJ hid the names of the U.S. company, its founders, and its commentators. But the company's launch, its six person roster, and its output all match Tenet Media. A saved copy of Tenet's site listed Benny Johnson, Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Lauren Southern, Matt Christiansen, and Tayler Hansen.3 None of those commentators was charged in this indictment.

The alleged money path

DOJ says the company got about 30 wire transfers from seven foreign entities. Together they totaled $9.7 million. That was nearly 90% of all deposits. The company then paid about $8.7 million to three commentators' production companies.1 The indictment describes one unnamed contract at $400,000 per month plus a signing bonus. Another paid $100,000 per weekly video.

The fake investor matters

The government's own account says at least two commentators asked who was funding the venture. The founders and alleged RT participants named a fake European investor, “Eduard Grigoriann.” One commentator reportedly searched for him, doubted his life story, and asked for a call.1

That shows both due diligence and deception. It also shows the true owner stayed hidden while very rich contracts moved ahead. Was the checking enough? That is a judgment call. It does not prove anyone knew a crime was going on.

What control DOJ alleged

The indictment says Afanasyeva used fake names inside company systems. She supplied about 841 clips, asked for coverage, passed around edits, and watched how they spread. In time, she and Kalashnikov got direct access to post on company accounts.1 Staff sometimes pushed back. DOJ says the commentators did not all share the same views.

This backs the claim of control over the main production and feeds. It does not show that RT scripted every creator's own monologue. And it does not show that every creator knew who was making the requests.

Johnson's response, and the Turning Point link

Johnson's saved statement says a media startup pitched his company. He says his lawyers negotiated an independent contractor deal at arm's length. The deal later ended. And he says he and other influencers were victims in the alleged scheme.4 Those are his claims. A court has not ruled on them. The saved post does not include the wider cooperation or editorial control claims some people tie to his response. So this case does not repeat them.

Turning Point's own materials list Johnson as a contributor. They earlier listed him as chief creative officer.5 That shows a separate promotion tie. It does not show TPUSA signed the Tenet contract. It does not show TPUSA got the alleged funds, knew the source, or took part.

The strongest defense

The alleged RT operators used shell companies, fake names, and a fake investor. Some creators asked who was paying. They were not charged. Their views were not all the same. And renting out an established audience is not illegal by itself. A creator is usually not to blame for a partner's hidden crime just because the pay was high.

The fair takeaway is simple. Being a victim and being accountable can both be true. Political creators sell trust. They should verify who really owns the money. They should keep their editorial control terms. They should disclose major sponsors. And they should explain their mistakes when a hidden source comes to light.