This has already been explained ad-nauseam to him.
All he does is cherry-pick any statement that agrees with his sentiments including pulling whole quotes out of context and saying they support what he says.
At this point, he knows he is being dishonest, but seems to think he somehow can’t be dishonest if he explains his way out of any of this.
I mean, look at this:
He will argue to the death that these two statements agree with each other and are not contradictory. It’s like arguing red is blue and fire is cold. It’s schizophrenic.