Yep.So you agree they are hiding something? That’s my entire point. You agree they are protecting pedophiles?
Yep.So you agree they are hiding something? That’s my entire point. You agree they are protecting pedophiles?
So you agree they are hiding something?
Yep.
Your granny fetish is noted, bad boy.I agree "they" are protecting Ekklesian's mom.
A network of two. Got it.You missed something…..
“Thank you for a fun night.
Your littlest girl was a little naughty.”
Do you believe that the Us Government is presently hiding the names of pedophiles?Generally, when someone loads his assertions with a lot of plural or indefinite pronouns or other weasel words (in this case, "they" and "something"), it means he's hedging on making a concrete claim.
So your vague aspersions can be vaguely handwaved away.
I'm sure you impress stupid people just the same way stupid people seem to impress you. I'm not one of them, though.
If it’s only two do you believe the two must be investigated?A network of two. Got it.
He has this weird fixation on your Mom for some reason.Your granny fetish is noted, bad boy.
Do you believe that the Us Government is presently hiding the names of pedophiles?
Wow!Who in the US government? It has 23 million employees. Which ones are supposedly hiding the names of pedophiles? Is the US government (or subset thereof) hiding the names of pedophiles as a matter of policy, or have some individuals or organizations gone rogue? Who are you accusing of being pedophiles? How do you come across this information? Why are they being protected when Jeffrey Epstein wasn't?
"The government is doing it" is no less vague.
Wow!
People asking questions impress you? You would prefer that your unsupported assertions were just agreed with?
You still aren't naming names, can't tell me where you got this information, can't support it with facts or verify its reliability. You just expect us to take your word for it.
You are a retard.

Well, although he was convicted of having a sex trafficking network which means nothing to you?What is this supposed to prove? That you know how to post someone else's screenshots?
![]()
Well, although he was convicted of having a sex trafficking network which means nothing to you?
He was convicted of this how can this mean he acted alone?
They refuse to investigate who he was working with.Anyone can create and post a "screenshot" saying anything they want it to. So no, it means nothing to me.
I was asking you who he was acting with.
And of course since you don't know (), you just use the opportunity to advertise your ignorance even more.
![]()
They refuse to investigate who he was working with.
And, it’s a fact proven in court that he had a sex trafficking network.
Who he was acting with is the coverup.
Dumb!!
Sure. Do you believe that they aren't or haven't been?If it’s only two do you believe the two must be investigated?
Nope!Sure. Do you believe that they aren't or haven't been?