Why not enumerate and classify his arguements? It could make for a good undergraduate study for someone studying logic (or, rather, illogic, if thats a course you can take) or just general sophistry and spindoctoring.
Like, say, all of his emotional appeals about how we need to give the programs just one more chance, even though we have a 30~ year history of them so far.
Or isolation isn't isolation, because he says its therapy, even though the experts say otherwise.
Or, LGATs arent abusive, or effective, etc.
Or, emotionally laden nonsense about "BLOSSOMING" or "GROWING", etc.