Monday, February 23, 2026

IN BRIEF: The Russian Propaganda Indictment, and What it Means for Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin.

A sprawling federal investigation into an alleged Russian foreign influence operation in the United States has resulted in a lengthy indictment that names several prominent conservatives and right-leaning influencers as unwitting participants in the scheme. Released yesterday by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 32-page indictment alleges two Russian nationals spearheaded an influence operation targeting an American audience to subtly push pro-Russia propaganda.

The DOJ claims that Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva—both employees of Russia Today—are at the center of a money laundering operation that spent nearly $10 million using a network of shell companies in the U.S. and Europe to influence and sow division among Americans. Russia Today—recently rebranded as RT—is a Russian state-controlled media outlet forced to register as a foreign agent in the United States in 2017 under former President Donald J. Trump.

RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.

According to the indictment, the Russian operatives approached a Tennesee-based media company—widely understood to be Tenet Media—offering to finance a social media operation primarily centered on YouTube videos addressing hot-button American political issues. However, as part of the financial agreement, Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva would have a high degree of control over the content published. The two would use false identities in their interactions with content creators, directing them to unwittingly push Russian interests among more standard social media political commentary.

Tenet Media is owned by Canadian national and right-wing social media personality Lauren Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan. The DOJ indictment does not mention either by name, nor does it level criminal charges—as of now—against the couple. However, the charging document does allege that both Chen and Donovan were aware that they were working with and taking money from Russian operatives and appear to be complicit in pushing Russian propaganda.

UNWITTING PARTICIPANTS.

The indictment notes that while Tenet Media’s leadership appeared willing to participate in the Russian influence scheme, the company’s clients were unaware of the foreign connections. Tenet Media had relationships with a roster of conservative and right-leaning influencers, including Benny Johnson, Tim Pool, and Dave Rubin.

“A year ago, a media startup pitched my company to provide content as an independent contractor. Our lawyers negotiated a standard, arms length deal, which was later terminated,” Johnson wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter) responding to the indictment. He adds: “We are disturbed by the allegations in today’s indictment, which make clear that myself and other influencers were victims in this alleged scheme.”

Also, responding to the indictment, Dave Rubin wrote on X: “These allegations clearly show that I and other commentators were the victims of this scheme. I knew absolutely nothing about any of this fraudulent activity. Period.”

Rubin stresses that the DOJ has never contacted him regarding its investigation and subsequent indictment.

show less
A sprawling federal investigation into an alleged Russian foreign influence operation in the United States has resulted in a lengthy indictment that names several prominent conservatives and right-leaning influencers as unwitting participants in the scheme. Released yesterday by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 32-page indictment alleges two Russian nationals spearheaded an influence operation targeting an American audience to subtly push pro-Russia propaganda. show more

BREAKING–Hidden Camera Shows DOJ Spox Admitting Anti-Trump Lawfare Campaign Is Political ‘Perversion of Justice.’

A top public affairs official within Joe Biden‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) is admitting that the Democrat-led lawfare campaign against former President Donald J. Trump is “a perversion of justice” and “a mockery of justice.” Nicholas Biase, who serves as the chief of public affairs for the DOJ’s U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), made the remarks on an undercover video released by Steven Crowder, in which he blasted the federal and state prosecutions of Trump as a “travesty.”

“The whole thing is disgusting,” Biase said in the undercover video, adding: “That’s why [Trump‘s] surging in the polls.” Biase states that even his colleagues in the Southern District of New York believe the prosecutions are politically motivated and a “perversion.”

ALVIN BRAGG’S NONSENSE CASE.

Addressing the business fraud case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Biase accuses the Democrat DA of essentially stitching together the flimsy case to further his political career and interfere in the 2024 presidential election. “[Alvin Bragg] was stacking charges and rearranging things just to make it fit a case,” the DOJ official states. Baise adds: “To be honest with you, I think the case is nonsense.”

“The state level is like the fucking wild west,” the SDNY spokesman says before continuing: “They’re like, idiots.”

“They don’t care. They’re all political,” Baise said, concluding: ” They’re going to try and lock [Trump] up. It’s going to be ugly.”

‘MOCKERY OF JUSTICE.’

Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis was not spared Biase’s criticism either. The SDNY chief public affairs office slammed the Georgia prosecutor and her case. “It’s a travesty of justice,” he says, continuing: “To put it mildly, its a mockery of justice. [Fani Willis] is a joke.”

“Like her and her boyfriend she was seeing, the whole thing is disgusting,” Baise argues, adding: “And they’re just out to get [Trump].”

WATCH:

show less
A top public affairs official within Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) is admitting that the Democrat-led lawfare campaign against former President Donald J. Trump is "a perversion of justice" and "a mockery of justice." Nicholas Biase, who serves as the chief of public affairs for the DOJ's U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), made the remarks on an undercover video released by Steven Crowder, in which he blasted the federal and state prosecutions of Trump as a "travesty." show more
bannon image by Gage Skidmore

BREAKING: Steve Bannon’s Lawyers Ask for Early Release. Here’s How it Could Work…

The attorney for former White House Chief Strategist and War Room host Stephen K. Bannon has filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court “to reimpose bail pending appeal or to impose supervised release.” In the motion, R. Trent McCotter—a partner with Boyden Gray PLLC—argues that “every order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”

McCotter contends that the District Court should reimpose bail or supervised release as new developments in Bannon‘s suggest a grant—or at least substantial dissent from denial—of the en banc appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court is likely. Additionally, the motion notes Circuit Court Judge Justin R. Walker has reversed course on the panels’ original May 10 decision and issued a full dissent instead of joining the ruling in part.

This change in opinion by Judge Walker, McCotter insists, represents a substantial legal issue on appeal for purposes of bail. Additionally, McCotter notes that the July 15 en banc appeal filed by Bannon saw the D.C. Circuit ask the BidenHarris Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a response as to the “the meaning of ‘willfully’ in 2 U.S.C. § 192.”

Such a move by the court is rare, leading McCotter to conclude that this, too, “signals the substantiality” of legal changes in the case and the potential for the full circuit to reverse the panel’s decision.

Finally, McCotter notes that even the BidenHarris DOJ is now acknowledging they can only find one case in all U.S. case law that defines “willfully” in the same manner they have. Bannon’s attorney contends that this represents a third substantial legal change that would allow revisiting the bail ruling.

Should the District Court find in Bannon‘s favor, he could quickly be released on bail pending his ongoing legal appeals.

show less
The attorney for former White House Chief Strategist and War Room host Stephen K. Bannon has filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court "to reimpose bail pending appeal or to impose supervised release." In the motion, R. Trent McCotter—a partner with Boyden Gray PLLC—argues that "every order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge." show more

What Does the House Impeachment Inquiry Report Say?

The impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, formally adopted by the House of Representatives in December of last year, has released its final report and recommendation. Prepared by the Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees, the report concludes that investigators have “accumulated evidence demonstrating that President Biden has engaged in impeachable conduct.”

According to the House investigating committees, Biden—while serving as vice president to Barack Obama—abused his office for monetary gain for himself and his family. The report states that “the Biden family and their business associates received tens of millions of dollars from foreign interests by leading those interests to believe that such payments would provide them access to and influence” with the U.S. federal government through then-Vice President Biden.

FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

In one 2014 instance cited in the inquiry report, Biden attended a dinner on behalf of his son Hunter with Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina. “Following the dinner, Baturina wired $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a firm associated with Hunter Biden,” the report reads. “Then, months later, as Hunter Biden and his business associates continued to solicit more money from Baturina, Vice President Biden participated in a phone call with Baturina and Hunter Biden where Vice President Biden told Baturina, ‘you be good to my boy.'”

House investigators say, “Based on the totality of the evidence, it is inconceivable that President Biden did not understand that he was taking part in an effort to enrich his family by abusing his office of public trust.”

CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.

In addition to accusations of public corruption and abuse of office, the investigating committees allege they’ve uncovered evidence that Biden abused his office “to conceal his mishandling of classified information as a private citizen.” The report notes that while serving in Obama‘s White House, Biden removed classified documents and appears to have stored them post-vice presidency “at the Penn Biden Center, at his personal residence in a garage, and at the University of Delaware.”

FAVORABLE LOANS.

An underreported aspect of the House probe into the Biden family was certain aspects of domestic political corruption. While much of the media coverage of the impeachment inquiry focused on Joe and Hunter Biden‘s foreign business dealings, the report also details that members of the Biden family received favorable loan terms from major Democratic Party benefactors.

“The Biden family leveraged Joe Biden’s positions of public trust to obtain over $8 million in loans from Democratic benefactors. Millions of dollars in loans have not been repaid and the paperwork supporting many of the loans does not exist and has not been produced to the Committees,” the impeachment inquiry report notes, adding: “This raises serious questions about whether these funds were provided as gifts disguised as loans.”

SPECIAL TREATMENT.

One of the more disturbing accusations in the House report is that the Biden family, including Joe and Hunter, received special treatment from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—essentially allowing their alleged criminal enterprise to operate without interference. The inquiry states that the DOJ and FBI slow-walked investigations into Hunter Biden and allowed the statute of limitations to run out on more serious charges against him.

Additionally, the House investigators contend that the Biden-Harris DOJ purposefully misled Congress “about the independence of law enforcement entities in the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden. Biden Administration political appointees exercised significant oversight and control over the investigation of the President’s son.”

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 

Finally, the report alleges that the Biden-Harris government has engaged in obstruction of justice by refusing testimony and withholding key documents from House investigators. “The White House has impeded the Committees’ investigation of President Biden’s unlawful retention of classified documents, by refusing to make relevant witnesses available for interviews and by erroneously asserting executive privilege over audio recordings from Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President Biden,” the report reads.

It adds: “In addition, the White House is preventing the National Archives from turning over documents that are material to the Committees’ inquiry.”

show less
The impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, formally adopted by the House of Representatives in December of last year, has released its final report and recommendation. Prepared by the Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees, the report concludes that investigators have "accumulated evidence demonstrating that President Biden has engaged in impeachable conduct." show more

Could Google Really Be Broken Up?

Google could soon be broken up into smaller companies after the Internet search giant was found to be in violation of U.S. antitrust law last week. The Justice Department (DOJ) is weighing a range of potential remedies to Google‘s search monopoly for consideration by a federal judge. One option would be to force the company to spin off parts of its business, like the Chrome browser and Android smartphone.

While breaking up Google is a distinct possibility, other options under consideration include forcing the tech giant to adopt data interoperability—meaning they’d be required to share data with competitors. Additionally, the court could nullify deals that make Google’s search engine the default setting on various devices, including Apple‘s iPhone.

The DOJ is reportedly consulting with technology industry experts and companies impacted by Google‘s monopoly regarding potential remedies. According to individuals close to the discussions, the deliberations are currently in preliminary stages.

Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, overseeing the case, has directed both the DOJ and Google to establish a procedural framework by September 4. A subsequent hearing to outline the next steps is set for September 6.

Last week’s judgment against Google represents a significant milestone in antitrust enforcement. The ruling will likely intensify the scrutiny of technology conglomerates such as Apple, Amazon, and Meta, which are also facing antitrust investigations. Google is scheduled for another antitrust trial focused on ad technology next month.

The implications for the tech giant are substantial, given the company’s evolution into a $2 trillion enterprise driven by a robust online advertising apparatus and other ventures tied to its search engine. Last year, Google‘s search engine and associated businesses generated $175 billion in revenue.

show less
Google could soon be broken up into smaller companies after the Internet search giant was found to be in violation of U.S. antitrust law last week. The Justice Department (DOJ) is weighing a range of potential remedies to Google's search monopoly for consideration by a federal judge. One option would be to force the company to spin off parts of its business, like the Chrome browser and Android smartphone. show more

New Evidence Suggests Hunter Biden Illegally Acted as Foreign Agent.

Newly released State Department documents reveal Hunter Biden sought U.S. government assistance for a project in Italy on behalf of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma while his father, Joe Biden, served as Vice President of the United States. The records—which the Biden-Harris government had buried and only released after the 81-year-old Democrat dropped out of the 2024  presidential race—provide additional and clear evidence that Hunter Biden illegally acted as an unregistered foreign agent.

Despite several clear instances of Hunter Biden having used his family name to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of foreign clients—including Burisma—he has never been charged with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The lack of action by the Department of Justice (DOJ) has even resulted in some potential FARA charges passing the statute of limitations.

HELP FOR BURISMA.

The latest documents detail communications between Hunter Biden and the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce regarding a proposed Burisma geothermal energy project in Tuscany, Italy. Through a letter, Biden sought the assistance of the U.S. ambassador to Italy at the time, John R. Phillips, in making an introduction to the then-president of the Tuscany region, Enrico Rossi. Burisma was seeking to fast-track regulatory approval by Rossi.

Biden’s contact with the U.S. ambassador was met with unease at the Departments of State and Commerce. “I want to be careful about promising too much,” a Department of Commerce official wrote at the time, adding: “This is a Ukrainian company and, purely to protect ourselves, U.S.G. should not be actively advocating with the government of Italy without the company going through the D.O.C. Advocacy Center.”

A SECOND ATTEMPT.

In a separate email to an Italian businessman with ties to Rossi, Hunter Biden‘s business partner Eric Schwerin attached the letter to the U.S. ambassador, adding: “Burisma is hoping that some of its executives can get a meeting with the president to discuss their geothermal business in Tuscany.” Shortly thereafter, Hunter Biden made a second attempt to press the U.S. ambassador for an introduction to Rossi.

“The Ambassador already replied to one letter from Mr. Biden,” the Department of Commerce official wrote following Biden‘s second attempt at an introduction. They added: “He may be shopping for more support than he got here.”

Ultimately, it appears Biden‘s efforts to enlist the U.S. government’s assistance on behalf of Burisma in Tuscany were unsuccessful. There is no indication the meeting between Burisma executives and Rossi ever materialized, and eventually, the energy project fell through.

show less
Newly released State Department documents reveal Hunter Biden sought U.S. government assistance for a project in Italy on behalf of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma while his father, Joe Biden, served as Vice President of the United States. The records—which the Biden-Harris government had buried and only released after the 81-year-old Democrat dropped out of the 2024  presidential race—provide additional and clear evidence that Hunter Biden illegally acted as an unregistered foreign agent. show more

Trump Sues DOJ for $100M Over Mar-a-Lago Raid.

Former President Donald J. Trump plans to file a lawsuit against the Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking $100 million in damages for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raid on his Mar-a-Lago property in 2022. Trump’s legal team alleges that the raid was carried out with the intent of political persecution, describing the raid as “tortious conduct by the United States against President Trump.”

The lawsuit stems from the FBI‘s August 8, 2022, raid on Mar-a-Lago, which occurred as part of a federal probe into Trump’s alleged retention of classified documents. A federal judge later dismissed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump, citing Smith’s unlawful appointment and funding under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Attorney Daniel Epstein, representing Trump, submitted a notice to the DOJ, which has 180 days to respond before the suit moves to federal court in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein claims the raid involved intrusion upon seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. He argues that Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray did not follow established protocols, including seeking the target’s consent and notifying their legal representatives.

Epstein’s memo asserts that Garland and Wray’s actions were not based on valid social, economic, and political policies but rather on principles inconsistent with constitutional standards aimed at persecuting Trump. The legal filing also indicates that the raid inflicted $15 million in damages on Trump due to legal costs.

Trump’s attorney maintains that the FBI‘s actions violated Trump’s privacy and were politically motivated. Filings also later revealed the FBI was permitted to use deadly force during the raid. He stresses that there was no constitutional basis for the search or subsequent indictment, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts.

show less
Former President Donald J. Trump plans to file a lawsuit against the Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking $100 million in damages for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raid on his Mar-a-Lago property in 2022. Trump's legal team alleges that the raid was carried out with the intent of political persecution, describing the raid as "tortious conduct by the United States against President Trump." show more
FBI

FBI Conducted Nationwide Social Media Censorship and Surveillance Before 2022 Midterms.

Federal government documents obtained by America First Legal (AFL) reveal the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) engaged in extensive social media censorship and surveillance during the 2022 midterm elections. The Biden-Harris government censorship program saw the FBI’s National Election Command Post (NECP) create a list of social media users they flagged as spreading “misinformation.”

Subsequently, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) sent “preservation letters” to social media companies requesting user information be preserved ahead of potential legal action. Among the accounts targeted by the FBI for further action and investigation during the midterms was Right Side Broadcasting Network, which streams former President Donald J. Trump‘s campaign events in their entirety.

According to the files and communications obtained by AFL, the lists generated by the FBI included foreign threats, known Internet hackers, and accounts they viewed as having potentially violated election laws. The last was the case with Right Side Broadcasting Network.

An Inspector General report indicates the Biden-Harris DOJ and FBI likely used legal processes to compel cooperation from social media companies—forcing them to hand over user data and other evidence.

The National Pulse reported in June that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives subpoenaed the Biden-Harris Department of State, requesting records on programs aimed to foster “censorship-by-proxy and revenue interference of American small businesses.”

Lawmakers allege that the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) has used federal grants to fund groups like the London-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which targets advertisers on conservative media platforms.

show less
Federal government documents obtained by America First Legal (AFL) reveal the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) engaged in extensive social media censorship and surveillance during the 2022 midterm elections. The Biden-Harris government censorship program saw the FBI's National Election Command Post (NECP) create a list of social media users they flagged as spreading "misinformation." show more
Purchased by The National Pulse

REPORT: Pakistani National Tied to Iran Charged With Plotting to Assassinate Trump.

A Pakistani national has been charged in federal court with plotting to assassinate former President Donald J. Trump and other public officials. Federal prosecutors allege the man, named as Asif Merchant, flew to the United States from Pakistan with the intention of hiring hitmen to carry out an attack on Trump and other U.S. lawmakers. Prior to the trip, the suspect is believed to have spent extensive time in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Merchant’s arrest, which occurred last month, became public after criminal filings were unsealed in a New York federal court on Tuesday. The complaint against Merchant does not mention Trump by name. However, an ABC News report confirms that the America First leader was the plot’s intended target.

The National Pulse reported on July 17 that federal law enforcement acknowledged they were aware of an Iranian plot to assassinate Trump before his near-assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said at the time they had received human-sourced intelligence regarding the plot. It now appears that human-sourced intelligence was likely an FBI confidential informant—mentioned in the unsealed complaint—who had made contact with Merchant.

Iran has sought to assassinate Trump and other U.S. officials in response to a September 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed one of the Islamic Republic’s top military commanders, Qassem Soleimani. In March of this year, the FBI’s Miami Field Office announced that it was seeking information about an Iranian intelligence officer, Majid Dastjani Farahani, in connection to alleged assassination plots against current and former U.S. government officials that Iran believes are responsible for Soleimani’s death.

While the Iranian plot was foiled, former President Trump was shot in the ear by 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania. Crooks’ motives for the assassination attempt have not been made public.

show less
A Pakistani national has been charged in federal court with plotting to assassinate former President Donald J. Trump and other public officials. Federal prosecutors allege the man, named as Asif Merchant, flew to the United States from Pakistan with the intention of hiring hitmen to carry out an attack on Trump and other U.S. lawmakers. Prior to the trip, the suspect is believed to have spent extensive time in the Islamic Republic of Iran. show more

Google Monopoly Ruling in U.S. Raises Questions for Search Engine’s Future.

In a landmark decision, a U.S. District Court judge has found that Google illegally used its market dominance to suppress competition. The case, which has significant implications for the tech industry, was initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under then-President Donald Trump in 2020. Subsequently, the agency charged Google with abusing its monopoly in online search and advertising, leading to inflated prices for advertisers and limited options for consumers.

During the trial, DOJ attorneys argued that Google’s control over the search engine market allowed it to maintain high advertising prices. They also claimed that Google‘s financial position enabled the company to invest extensively in its search engine, further entrenching its dominance. Google countered these allegations by asserting that users have historically switched search engines if they were not satisfied with the results, citing Yahoo’s prior dominance in the 1990s.

After months of consideration, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had violated antitrust laws. In his written opinion, Mehta described Google as a “monopolist” and asserted that the company acted in an anti-competitive manner.

The decision paves the way for a new legal phase in which the court will determine the penalties and changes required to mitigate Google‘s anti-competitive behavior. Potential outcomes range from significant measures, such as dismantling parts of its business, to more moderate actions aimed at promoting competition and consumer choice.

Google is expected to appeal the ruling, possibly taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

show less
In a landmark decision, a U.S. District Court judge has found that Google illegally used its market dominance to suppress competition. The case, which has significant implications for the tech industry, was initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under then-President Donald Trump in 2020. Subsequently, the agency charged Google with abusing its monopoly in online search and advertising, leading to inflated prices for advertisers and limited options for consumers. show more