There’s a Republican primary underway in Missouri, and if you want a
case study in how modern political hit jobs work, look no further than
what’s being done to my colleague, radio talk show host turned candidate
Chris Stigall.
Stigall is now running for Congress, and instead of a debate over
ideas, records, or vision, his opponent has chosen a different route. A
slickly produced video built on selectively edited clips, designed to
make it sound like Stigall is saying things he never actually said. You’ve seen this before. You know exactly how it works. Before we go any further, watch the video they’re pushing: Now that you’ve seen it, let’s talk about what’s actually happening. Because this is not a good-faith critique. This is narrative construction through omission. And
if it feels familiar, it should. This is the exact same playbook used
against Donald Trump with the Charlottesville “very fine people” hoax.
Take a real quote, strip away the surrounding context, remove the
clarifying language, and repeat the edited version until it becomes
“truth” to people who never saw the original. Now let’s break down the six key examples being used against Stigall. First:
“I don’t want Trump to be the nominee.” Clean. Damaging. Totally
misleading. In the full exchange, Stigall is responding to a caller and
describing a portion of his audience that feels that way. He literally
says the caller “articulated exactly” what many listeners are thinking.
That’s not a declaration. That’s a radio host doing his job.
Second, the claim: “We’re going to have an indicted nominee running
against Joe Biden.” The video presents this as Stigall predicting doom.
In reality, he’s carefully walking through competing views inside the
Republican base. He even says he’s trying not to upset supporters of
different candidates and acknowledges he could be wrong. It’s analysis,
not advocacy. Third, the quote: “A lot of you are over it… tired
of defending him.” In isolation, it sounds like he’s dismissing Trump
supporters. In context, it’s the opposite. He’s acknowledging fatigue
and then immediately pivoting to defend Trump’s enduring bond with
working-class voters, arguing that no one should underestimate him. The
second half, naturally, is cut out. Fourth, the line: “Let’s go
with a proven leader that’s not being threatened with jail.” That’s
being used to suggest Stigall is backing Trump’s rivals. But he
explicitly says he is not endorsing anyone. He’s describing what many
Republican voters are thinking and even says he respects that
perspective. That’s not an endorsement. That’s an observation. Fifth,
the supposed smoking gun: “I will not support Donald Trump.” That clip
sounds devastating until you realize it’s his position from 2016.
Stigall is recounting his past support for Ted Cruz and his skepticism
of Trump before Trump became president. He’s using it to illustrate how
his views evolved and how the base saw something he didn’t at the time.
It’s reflection, not a current position.
And sixth, the swipe about “Trump people who misbehave and act like
jacka**es on social media.” The video frames this as an attack on Trump
supporters. In reality, Stigall is doing something refreshingly honest.
He calls out bad behavior while also defending Trump supporters from
being labeled as cultists. He explicitly says he leans Trump and is not
anti-DeSantis. It’s balance. It’s nuance. And it’s exactly what gets
cut. That’s the pattern. Six examples. Same tactic every time. The words are real. The meaning is fabricated. Every
clip is surgically edited to remove the part where Stigall explains
himself, adds context, or acknowledges competing viewpoints. What
remains is a caricature designed to mislead. And here’s the part that should bother you, no matter where you stand politically. If
his opponent had a stronger argument, they’d make it. If they had a
better vision, they’d present it. Instead, they’re relying on the same
dishonest editing tricks that have eroded trust in media and politics
for years. This is manipulation. Chris Stigall built his
career by talking with his audience, not at them. He respects them
enough to acknowledge disagreement, to explore complexity, and to say
out loud what many are thinking. That’s how he established credibility.
But credibility is hard to attack directly. So instead, they manufacture something easier to knock down. We’ve
seen how this ends when it goes unchallenged. We lived through years of
selectively edited clips shaping national narratives while the full
truth sat ignored, just one click away. Now it’s happening in a Republican primary. And
the question is simple. Are voters going to fall for it again, or are
they going to demand the full context before making up their minds? Because once you see the trick, you can’t unsee it. | 
