This assumes he's acting in good faith - that the central question is if he
believes in an argument or merely if the argument
can be made.
Do you suspect that his goal is to
convince or merely
distract and save face?
He could've just said "Touché. I forgot I'd said that," which, incidentally, is the truth. Instead, his pride prevented him from admitting it, just as it prevents him, then as now, from calling Trump a racist - as if
that is less embarrassing.
And yet, he also wants us to believe he's
changed.
This is something people need to understand about Dwalk:
He has no bag. He's Sean Bradley on the block. He's Jan Vesely on the break. He's Mike Lindell at the lectern.
In the past,
I've joked about him having a Tecmo Bowl playbook. Really, there aren't even four discrete plays - just minor variations of the same move.
He desperately needs to create ambiguity so he can rationalize selfish choices. That's it.
All these distinctions without a difference are the rhetorical equivalent of telling someone “hey, look behind you” and running away. He needs someone, anyone, to be curious or masochistic enough to validate these "arguments" via engagement, so he can drag them down some preposterous literary deconstructionist rabbit hole or nihilist both-sides take and shift the discussion away from the blatant, glaring contradiction staring you in the face.
Just don't bite on the head fake.