I thought it was pretty clear from the start that his observations about Trump's persuasive talents, although valid, weren't his real reasons for supporting Trump (the real reasons being that Scott Adams is wealthy and apparently a bit racist.)
"Clear" in the sense of inferable, yes, but usually people's stated rationalizations are quite a bit more defensible. In this case the excuse was morally abhorrent even if you accepted it at face value.
The man is all about "persuasion" so I have to assume that lying about his motives is part of his toolbox.
Like a used car salesman who tells you that he's motivated by helping people get the best car they need, instead of being motivated to make lots of money by getting people to spend as much money on a car as they can bare.
