admin
A Democratic candidate for Ohio Attorney General, Elliot Forhan, ignited a political firestorm when he posted a video saying, plainly, “I am going to kill Donald Trump” — then attempted to dress the comment up as a promise to seek capital punishment through the courts. The clip was posted to his campaign account and quickly drew national attention for its raw and reckless language.
This is not mere campaign rhetoric — it is disqualifying for anyone who wants to be the chief law enforcement officer in a state. Republicans and conservative commentators rightly slammed Forhan, and even some establishment Democrats felt compelled to distance themselves from the kind of inflammatory talk that fuels division and risk.
Forhan tried to justify his remark by framing it as a legal promise: he said he would prosecute President Trump for alleged treasonous acts tied to January 6 and, if convicted by a jury, seek the death penalty. That claim raises a host of practical and constitutional questions, not least what law the Ohio Attorney General could even wield against a sitting or former president and whether such a campaign promise could ever be reconciled with impartial justice.
This latest outburst is hardly an isolated lapse in judgment. Forhan carries a history of controversy, including prior accusations of abusive behavior at the Statehouse and a tasteless social post after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk that only deepened concerns about his temperament. Voters deserve an attorney general who respects the rule of law and basic decency, not someone with a track record of volatile public conduct.
Conservative Americans should not be naive about the consequences of normalizing this rhetoric. When a candidate for the highest law-enforcement office in a state casually talks about another American’s death — even couched in legal jargon — it lowers the bar for political violence and invites retaliation from the fringe. Leaders on both sides ought to recognize that reckless words have real-world effects, and accountability must follow.
The office of attorney general exists to defend the impartial administration of justice, not to be a weapon for vendettas dressed up as prosecutorial zeal. If Democrats truly believe in equal application of the law, they should be the first to reject candidates who talk about executing political opponents. Ohioans should expect their next AG to protect every citizen’s rights, not campaign on a promise of political retribution.
Republican leaders and grassroots conservatives are right to demand answers and consequences; silence or faint rebukes will be read as complicity. Prominent figures across the political spectrum have already condemned Forhan’s remarks, and voters must remember that temperament, judgment, and respect for legal limits matter in a role that can make or break lives.
This episode is a reminder that the left’s tolerance for extreme rhetoric has become a danger to our civic fabric. Hardworking Americans will not forget who caters to chaos versus who stands for order and the Constitution, and on Election Day they should deliver a clear message that threats and lawlessness have no place in public office.
