I don't need any evidence of that. People not being under arrest is the default assumption. You're the one claiming he's been arrested. Therefore you're the one who has to substantiate your own claim.
So are you once again refusing to provide a shred of evidence to support your claims?
I don't need any evidence of that. People not being under arrest is the default assumption. You're the one claiming he's been arrested. Therefore you're the one who has to substantiate your own claim.
So are you once again refusing to provide a shred of evidence to support your claims?
That's not a secret.
So where's the evidence that Q anon is real?
I've asked you repeatedly, and all you've done is dance around it.
If you can't provide a shred of proof that Q anon is real, why do you believe in him?