A former D.C. cop who survived the January 6 attack is now the target of seven criminal referrals and a $10 million lawsuit from a far-right activist, in a fight that shows just how broken and weaponized our justice and political systems have become.
Story Snapshot
- Far-right activist Ivan Raiklin says he filed seven criminal referrals and a $10 million defamation suit against former officer Michael Fanone.
- Raiklin claims body camera video from January 6 proves Fanone lied to Congress, but he has not provided official court proof so far.
- Federal court records and video show Fanone was brutally assaulted and tased on January 6, and several rioters were convicted for attacking him.
- The clash fits a wider pattern where activists use criminal referrals and defamation suits as political weapons, deepening public distrust in the system.
Who Michael Fanone And Ivan Raiklin Are
Former Washington, D.C. police officer Michael Fanone became widely known after he rushed to the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and was beaten, tased, and dragged into the crowd. Federal court documents and video show rioters shocked him with a stun gun and pulled him down the Capitol steps, causing serious injuries. Judges later sentenced several attackers, including Kyle Young and Devlyn Thompson, to long prison terms for assaulting Fanone, firmly placing him in the record as a victim of the riot.
Ivan Raiklin is a conservative activist who pushed claims that the 2020 election was stolen and has attacked the January 6 investigations. He is often described in media reports as far-right and a promoter of election conspiracy theories. On January 22, 2026, both men attended a House Judiciary Committee hearing for former special counsel Jack Smith. During a break, Fanone confronted Raiklin and accused him of threatening to rape his children, leading to a tense scene as officers stepped in and escorted Fanone away.
Raiklin’s Seven Criminal Referrals And Defamation Claims
In a YouTube interview, Raiklin says he has filed seven criminal referrals against Fanone, including one focused on Fanone’s sworn testimony before the January 6 committee in July 2021. He argues that newly released body camera footage contradicts parts of that testimony and could count as a “materially false statement” under federal law on lying to investigators. Raiklin also claims six other referrals stem from the January 22, 2026 hearing clash, accusing Fanone of defamation, assault on a Capitol Police officer, and disrupting official proceedings.
Raiklin further says he has launched a $10 million civil lawsuit against Fanone, including counts of defamation and assault. He frames the case as a way to hold a “Jan 6 cop” and the system around him accountable. However, outside this interview, there is no publicly available court docket, case number, or detailed complaint that confirms the lawsuit’s status. There is also no official statement from the Department of Justice or local prosecutors showing that his criminal referrals have led to an active investigation or charges against Fanone.
What The Official January 6 Record Shows
Federal documents and video evidence paint a very different picture of Fanone’s role on January 6 than Raiklin’s supporters suggest. A Justice Department statement of facts in one case describes in detail how rioter Brady Snoots and others grabbed Fanone, tased him, and tried to strip his gear while he struggled to keep control. A separate sentencing memo for rioter Devlyn Thompson notes that Fanone was shocked repeatedly with a stun gun and subjected to a violent attack while defending the Capitol.
Fanone’s own sworn testimony before the House committee matches this record, saying his body camera captured the crowd’s violence against him and the moment he was pulled into the mob. Multiple defendants have been convicted and sentenced for assaulting Fanone, including Kyle Young, who received seven years in prison, and Albuquerque Head, who was sentenced to more than twelve years for driving a stun gun into Fanone’s neck. These cases were based on video, witness statements, and Justice Department reviews, not on political commentary, and they firmly establish that Fanone was attacked rather than acting as the aggressor.
Evidence Gaps And The Use Of Legal Threats As Political Tools
Raiklin’s claims rest heavily on his own interpretation of video and the confrontation at the Jack Smith hearing. He has not publicly released a detailed forensic review showing exactly where Fanone’s testimony supposedly conflicts with body camera footage. There is also no police incident report or certified hearing transcript that backs his claim that Fanone assaulted a Capitol Police officer in January 2026. Without these documents, his allegations remain untested assertions rather than proven facts in any court.
Read Full Criminal Referral for Michael Fanone here:https://t.co/4xONU34ik6@DAGToddBlanche @USAttyPirro @AAGDuva @DOJCrimDiv @TheJusticeDept
CC: @SpeakerJohnson @Jim_Jordan @RepGarbarino @RepJamesComer @RepLoudermilk pic.twitter.com/CjxM2idIoM
— Ivan Raiklin (@IvanRaiklin) June 29, 2026
This clash fits into a larger trend of political actors using defamation suits and “criminal referrals” to fight battles that once played out mainly in campaigns and on cable news. Legal scholars note that modern defamation cases often aim not just to seek damages, but to punish opponents, shape the public record, or silence critics through costly litigation. Public figures like Fanone, who speak about hot-button events such as January 6, face high legal standards: to win, a plaintiff must usually prove that statements about them were false and made with “actual malice,” meaning the speaker knew they were false or did not care about the truth.
Why This Story Resonates With A Distrustful Public
For many Americans on both the right and the left, this fight looks less like a search for truth and more like another sign that the system is broken. On one side, an ex-officer who risked his life now spends his time defending his name instead of seeing clear justice done. On the other, an activist claims the government and media protected lies while ignoring his referrals, reinforcing fears of a “deep state” that shields its own.
At the same time, ordinary people see that institutions have not fully answered key questions. There is still no public, side-by-side analysis matching Fanone’s body camera footage to every line of his testimony. There is no transparent record of how Congress or prosecutors handled Raiklin’s referrals. That silence feeds a growing belief that powerful insiders—whether on the law-and-order side or the activist side—play by different rules than everyone else. In that sense, this dispute is less about one cop and one activist, and more about a country losing faith that the truth will ever come first.
Sources:
thegatewaypundit.com, washingtonpost.com, facebook.com, nbcnews.com, instagram.com, judiciary.house.gov, papers.ssrn.com, knightcolumbia.org, youtube.com
