I don't know if anyone else who watched the clip got that same impression. But the "conflict of interest" argument was clearly the one that bothered him the most. Interesting that it is also the one he decided to address in the Stallyn comments.
I really don't know why, because I do not think it is the strongest argument against what they are dealing with. But then again, it is not like Rekieta has much sense when it comes to the law either.
His frustration and seeming cognitive dissonance on that point more than any other comes from the same place as his autistic fixation on "magic words" being the end-all-be-all of any legal question, his guilt of any misdeed only existing to the extent of what is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, Aaron's penile characteristics needing to be placed "on the record" despite that not being the same thing as findings of fact, etc.:
every proposition put forth to him must immediately be processed from the pedantic hypertechnical perspective of the attorney he wishes he was, situated in the courtroom in which he wishes he could practice.
Viewed through that myopic lens, in this case when he hears "conflict of interest" he immediately jumps to that necessarily meaning some legal term of art, and he accordingly analogizes the doctor-patient relationship to the attorney-client relationship, to conclude that because Melton in his
clientpatient capacity wants the same thing as what is wanted by Melton in his showman/payor capacity, the latter paying Steve in his own showman capacity does not introduce any motivation for Steve in his
attorneydoctor capacity to fuck over his
clientpatient, and thus there is no "conflict of interest." Checkmate! You can tell he is stuck on that track especially in that moment when he even briefly deviated to the topic of whether he was paid by Melton personally as opposed to being paid by Hackamania as a potentially separate entity that might have other equity stakeholders for all he knows, before he just shrugged off that possibility and changed the subject back to his comfort zone.
All of this is of course retarded, because the accusation was never using "conflict of interest" as a legal term of art about fiduciary loyalty
between Dr. Steve and Melton, and was instead just a layperson's use of the phrase in a colloquial sense about the obvious ethical quandary of a financial incentive potentially influencing a doctor's professional judgment and his honesty to a third party. Once Dr. Steve willingly inserted himself into a contested court proceeding in a way that effectively insisted that a judge
rely on his credentials and professional judgment, that newly created relationship of
reliance and its attendant obligation to not defraud the court was arguably somewhat akin to (but not technically identical to) a fiduciary relation with the court itself, and
that is where the supposed "conflict" lies: between the interests of a
clientpatient on the one hand and the different interests of a
clientcourt on the other hand.
This should be obvious from any common-sense perspective of laypeople dealing with the day-to-day real world, but the admittedly inartfully worded use of "conflict of interest" like a technical term of art was guaranteed to set off arcing and BSOD in the swiss-cheese brain of this autist that never could pick up on social cues. Come to think of it, slightly inapposite terminology like that should be thrown at him more often for similarly hilarious results.
x 18 
