Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit had a post yesterday titled WHOA! It Sounds Like Chris Matthews Just Endorsed Trump (VIDEO). Hoft — whose two-step editorial fact-checking process consists of 1) asking whether a story benefits Trump, and 2) determining how many exclamation points to include in the title — had this to say about Matthews:

No More Tingles—
Chris Matthews went off on Hillary Clinton last night on MSNBC.
It sounds like he just endorsed Donald Trump.

Hoft embedded the following tweet and following transcript:

BREAKING: Sounds like Chris Mathews from @MSNBC has just endorsed @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/YDYpvKNQc0

— MicroSpookyLeaks™ (@WDFx2EU7) November 1, 2016

Chris Matthews: If you like the way things are the way they are headed in this country. If you’d like to continue the destruction of our manufacturing base, and the jobs that went with it. If you like the uncontrollable immigration, if you like the string of stupid wars from Iraq to Libya to Syria. If you want to say yes to all of that, if you want to keep this all the way it is, fine, then vote for Hillary Clinton. If you don’t like the way things are headed you got a chance to really shake the system the system at its roots. If you wake up on Election Day and it’s the same as it is today, if its the same 4 or 5 or 8 years from now, remember you had a chance really change it up but you were to dainty to do it.

The problem with this video and this transcript is —

[Excuse me a moment. I have to go close the tab with the Gateway Pundit link. It keeps furiously auto-refreshing. Back in a sec.]

— as I was saying, the problem is that the video and transcript cut off the context, which plainly show Chris Matthews was not endorsing Trump. One hint: in the full video, Matthews says: “I say this not because I want Trump to win.” (WHOA! Sounds like he is endorsing Trump!!!) Here is the full video:

And here is the full transcript. I have placed in bold the parts that were surgically removed from the Trumper video that was so breathlessly and thoughtlessly distributed by Gateway Pundit:

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, I mean, whatever you think of Donald Trump, you have to wonder, why isn’t he doing it? Why isn’t he running for president? Why isn’t he spending every hour asking the voters again and again: Do you like the way things are, the way they’ve been headed in this country? Do you like to continue the destruction of our manufacturing base, and the jobs that went with it? Do you like the uncontrolled illegal immigration? Do you like this string of stupid wars from Iraq to Libya to Syria?

If you want to say yes to all of that, you want to keep all this the way it is, vote for Hillary Clinton. If you don’t like the way things have been headed you got a chance to really shake the system to its roots. And if you wake up the day after the election and it’s the same as it is today, if its the same 4 or 5 or 8 years from now, remember you had the chance to change it, but you were to dainty too do it.

I say this not because I want Trump to win, but because I can’t stand politics being practiced so pathetically.

I will say that Matthews’s commentary does seem to reveal a certain lack of complete comfort with the state of the country and the choice of Hillary Clinton. It does not seem hard for him to play Devil’s Advocate. But at the same time, only a con artist or a sucker would try to pass this off as a Trump endorsement. The guy who did the editing, like the candidate he supports, is a con artist. Jim Hoft (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here) is a sucker.

If you fell for this story, then you know what happened. Say it with me:

You went full Gateway Pundit.

Never go full Gateway Pundit.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

[guest post by Dana]

What a difference a day or two makes. On Monday, the White House stressed that President Obama didn’t believe James Comey had any untoward motives in announcing that the FBI was re-opening their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and also reaffirmed the president’s belief in Comey’s professionalism:

“I’ll neither defend nor criticize what Director Comey has decided to communicate to the public about this investigation,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in Monday’s press briefing.

In an effort to stay neutral on the topic, Earnest said, the White House will continue to be “scrupulous” in “avoiding even the appearance of political interference” in the investigation entrusted to the Department of Justice and the FBI.

He also said that President Barack Obama doesn’t think Comey is trying to sway the presidential race.

“The president doesn’t believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election,” he said. “The president doesn’t believe that he’s secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party.”

And though he would not weigh in on Comey’s letter, Earnest said Obama maintains a high opinion of Comey and has confidence in his ability to do his job.

“Director Comey is a man of integrity, he’s a man of principle, and he’s a man of good character,” Earnest said.

This morning it was a different story. During an interview, President Obama cast aspersions on Comey’s decision to re-open the investigation:

“I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations, we don’t operate on innuendo. We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made.”

The president noted that Comey himself decided not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton for mishandling classified information on her private email server as secretary of State.

“When this was investigated thoroughly the last time, the conclusion … was that, you know, she made some mistakes but that there wasn’t anything there that was, you know, prosecutable,” Obama said.

But here’s the thing: 650,000 newly discovered emails found on a newly discovered device belonging to the spouse of Hillary Clinton’s staffer top-aide and body woman is not “innuendo,” no matter how hard the president tries to spin it.

So what could have happened in a few short days that would compel the president, who we were told believed Director Comey to be a man of integrity, principle, and good character and in whose professionalism the president was confident, to now accuse that same Director Comey of operating on “innuendo”? What could have happened that would cause the president to decide he would no longer remain “scrupulous” in “avoiding even the appearance of political interference” in the investigation?

–Dana