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:
pic.twitter.com/SlqsSmJ9Jc https://t.co/SlqsSmJ9Jc https://t.co/UuNy3SUvHt
— Chris LaCivita (@ChrisLaCivita) April 10, 2026
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.