Backlash Over Ohio AG Candidate’s Comments on Trump
An Ohio Democratic candidate for attorney general, Elliott Forhan, has drawn swift criticism due to a Facebook post where he spoke about a plan to “kill Donald Trump.” In his post, Forhan, a former state representative, explained what he meant by the phrase. He suggested that, following a trial conducted with due process, a jury could issue a sentence that might lead to the death penalty being executed. “That’s what I mean when I say I’m going to kill Donald Trump,” he clarified.
This statement quickly ignited significant backlash on social media. Conservative commentator Dave Rubin characterized Forhan as a “total psychopath.” Similarly, the influencer LibsofTikTok remarked on Forhan’s comments, alleging that he had previously expressed harmful views. Another commentator, Robbie Starbuck, compared political opposition to drug addiction, asserting that some Democrats are now condoning violence.
Calls for the Ohio Democratic Party to distance itself from Forhan have surfaced, as some recall a recent election victory by Virginia’s Democratic Attorney General, who had previously made violent claims against political adversaries. Jay Edwards, a Republican candidate for treasurer, criticized the lack of response from Democratic leaders in Ohio, urging them to confront what he deemed “unstable comments.”
Ohio State Auditor Keith Faber, also in contention for attorney general, labeled Forhan’s remarks as “despicable.” He suggested that Democratic leaders should condemn such rhetoric or risk endorsing it within their ranks. Forhan previously faced scrutiny for his comments regarding the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
In response to the uproar, Forhan did not retract his statements. Instead, he emphasized his campaign’s intention to uphold the law fairly, even against high-profile figures like Trump. He stated that if the former president endangered democracy again, he would ensure accountability as Ohio’s attorney general. Forhan also criticized his political opponents, arguing that they ignore truths and the rule of law.
