I've heard him laugh like that when a guest wasn't even finished speaking. It's like he uses it as a method to cut off the conversation and go to the break. It's not even an appropriate time to laugh either. Plus, it's evident that half the time he doesn't pay attention to the content of the discussion.
I'm surprised to see he's not trending on Twitter. That wouldn't be good for him anyway.
Good 'ol George is an enigma that's for sure.
I agree that it seems like he uses words & sounds to convey meanings which most people wouldn't do that way. Like laughing in order to steer the topic into a direction he wants it to go. It's kind of frightening. How would you ever know what he really thinks if he laughs to convey control instead of to convey amusement?
And maybe he is paying attention, but uses audacious impertinence, like asking an irrelevant question to steer away from a pivotal point. I think he wants to get to break in time, but usually these pivotal points would be resolved in just about 30 more seconds with a lot more trust and grace than getting all weird. There is no way to know, really, if he is deliberately antagonizing. It's a combination of issues depending on each instance, of whether he was fixating personally on some really tiny aspect, was oblivious to topic sensitivity, or was just strategizing to get to break on time.
Some of the details he fixates on which derail pivotal moments are things he could just Google! Ugh! Or jot down & email the guest later. I'm sure he gets 1000s of emails, but he could "flag" that one while waiting for a response.
To his credit, I think he doesn't like to cut off a guest to go to break, so that might be why he kind of highjacks the conversation away from pivotal moments. It probably works fine much of the time, but when it doesn't, it's very uncomfortable.