January 6th insurrection

Doug LaMalfa's handling of January 6, 2021, reveals a disturbing pattern of rejecting incontrovertible evidence and embracing narratives that destabilize democratic norms.

Immediately after the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, LaMalfa joined 125 other House Republicans in signing an amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania, which sought to nullify certified election results in key states. That brief has been widely criticized as a legally groundless attempt to erase voters' choices (Wade, 2020). The Supreme Court dismissed the case outright for lack of standing, effectively affirming the validity of the certified results (Democracy Docket, 2020). By continuing to cast doubt on the outcome even after that decisive rebuke, LaMalfa made clear that he places partisan narrative above legal fact.

LaMalfa's persistence in promoting election denial is not mere posturing. It represents an active form of institutional subversion: by refusing to accept judicial rulings, he signals to constituents that courts, elections, and constitutional safeguards are subject to ideological override. In doing so, he lends rhetorical legitimacy to extremist theories that the 2020 election was "stolen," despite no credible evidence. His conduct erodes public confidence in institutions essential to democracy.

Perhaps even more alarming is LaMalfa's resistance to accountability. When Congress moved in June 2021 to establish the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack, LaMalfa voted against it, advancing the familiar defense that the commission was "too partisan" and insufficient in scope (LaMalfa, 2021). That stance is difficult to interpret as anything other than a calculated effort to forestall scrutiny—not a principled objection to overreach, but a shield for those aligned with the attacks and their enabling narratives.

In sum, LaMalfa's January 6 record is not benign or neutral. It is an active repudiation of facts, transparency, and the principles he swore to uphold. It reveals a politician more loyal to a subversive grievance politics than to the enduring norms of constitutional democracy.

The House Select Committee investigating January 6 conducted a sweeping, 18-month inquiry. Its final report, released December 22, 2022, laid out 17 central findings organized into two domains: misconduct by then-President Trump and systemic failures in law-enforcement preparation and response (House Select Committee, 2022; Desjardins, 2022). Among its most devastating conclusions:

• The Committee concluded that Trump engaged in a multi-part conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. In the months and weeks after the election, Trump and his inner circle mounted at least 200 "apparent acts of public or private outreach, pressure, or condemnation" of state election officials in contested states (Desjardins, 2022; Smith, 2022).
   
• The Committee found that Trump knowingly pressed false claims of fraud even after being repeatedly contradicted by his own advisers and election officials (Desjardins, 2022; House Select Committee, 2022).
   
• Officials affiliated with Trump developed and circulated detailed schemes—such as alternative slates of electors and the seizure of voting machines—directed toward invalidating legitimate votes (Desjardins, 2022).
   
• In its criminal referrals, the Committee unanimously recommended that the Department of Justice pursue charges against Trump for (1) obstruction of an official proceeding, (2) conspiracy to defraud the United States, (3) conspiracy to make false statements, and (4) aiding or inciting an insurrection (House Select Committee, 2022; Desjardins, 2022). It also referred attorney John Eastman for some of these offenses (House Select Committee, 2022).
   
• The Committee condemned multiple federal and local law-enforcement agencies for failing to prepare or respond adequately, despite possessing fragmented intelligence indicating violence (Desjardins, 2022; House Select Committee, 2022).
   
• It also recommended that four House Republicans—McCarthy, Jordan, Biggs, and Perry—be referred to the House Ethics Committee for failing to comply with subpoenas (House Select Committee, 2022).
   

These findings are not soft accusations or partisan rhetoric; they are the culmination of documented interviews, depositions, internal communications, texts, and hundreds of thousands of pages of records (House Select Committee, 2022). The Committee's report frames January 6 not as a spontaneous protest, but as a conceived, concerted effort to undermine democracy—one that required coordination, concealment, and durable support from high levels of political power.

By refusing even to acknowledge these findings, LaMalfa doubles down not only on denial but on the delegitimization of undeniable facts. His posture is a repudiation not just of reality, but of accountability itself. It should concern all of LaMalfa's constituents that he aligns himself with narratives that challenge the legitimacy of democratic processes.