Ekko's first argument - "whomever claimed this info did not need to do it!"
Ekko's second argument - "the reasoning behind their actions does not make sense!"
Ekko then takes a response to the second argument and forces it into the first one. This does not stand logically - there is no reason for these two elements to be crossed because they're each arguing separate things.
I should also point out, Ekko is trying to claim that he has us caught in a lie, but simultaneously, he is arguing that he reads us as Town. Why does he hold this position? It doesn't make sense - he would have to have use as such strong town to look past this from his perspective, but yet, his only contribution to playing the game at large today has been to argue why we should be suspected of being scum. His actions do not line up with his stated positions.