Yet more overwhelming statistical evidence of vote fraud

The biggest obstacle to proving claims of vote fraud by election officials is that the evidence needed to prove fraud is controlled by the same state officials who would be charged with a crime if official fraud is proven.  

So it's understandable that instead turning over evidence that could convict them, corrupt state election officials who participated in vote fraud would brazenly refuse to provide evidence, even if ordered to do so by a court.

Wait, do I hear my liberal friends and family bleating that such a scenario is impossible?  That no official would defy a court order to turn over evidence of a possible crime?  Funny, that's exactly what Hilliary Clinton did when Congress subpoenaed her unsecured private email server:  She defied the subpoena, gave the server to a contractor and directed the contractor to wipe the server.  

Easy-peasy.  No penalty for refusing to comply.  It's how they roll.

With that in mind:  We have decades of experience with "absentee voting" (mail-in ballots).  This experience shows that year after year, about three percent of these ballots are rejected because they didn't comply with one of the rules that supposedly guarantee the ballot isn't fraudulent. 

The most common reason is that the signature on the ballot envelope didn't match the sig on file with the voter's precinct.  Other reasons are if the envelope containing the ballot was postmarked after election day, or wasn't postmarked at all.

But in six counties in Pennsylvania, the number of ballots rejected was unrealistically far below the historical average of three percent.  Here are the official reported results for those counties:

Let me first direct your attention to two counties--Bucks and Montgomery--which reported that officials in those two counties didn't reject a single mail-in ballot.  Not one, out of 151,016 and 231,415 mail-in ballots received.  That's absurdly implausible. 

Next, the total rejection rate for the six counties is 440 rejects divided by 1,321,480 mail-in ballots received--again, both numbers are the ones officially reported--for a rate of 0.00033, or 33 one-thousandths of one percent.  

Compare that to the average rate in honest elections of three percent.  Anything strike you as...odd about the official rejection rate in those six counties?

Of course by now all the signed envelopes have been shredded, so there's no way to show how many mail-in votes were fraudulent.

So what would move the corrupt Democrat election officials to believe they could lie SO brazenly without risk?

For one thing, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is totally Democrat-controlled.  For another, 90 percent of lower-court judges in the state are Democrats.  For a third, the D.A. in Philly is a Democrat whose election was funded by George Soros.  So it's a fair bet that all the election officials had been assured that in the highly unlikely event that the fraud was exposed, they wouldn't be prosecuted.

What's really scary is that the officials were so confident that they could BRAZENLY

 cheat--reporting a rejection rate about 100 times lower than prior elections--with no fear of being caught.

Democrats, remember this:  You supported this by your silence.  Your hate for Trump and lust for power were so vast that you were willing to support brazen, obvious fraud--undermining faith in the honestly of elections--to get what you wanted.

Shame on all of you who have supported blocking investigation and honest recounts.

Source.

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/23/mail-in-ballots-in-pennsylvania-were-rejected-for-technical-errors-at-a-suspiciously-low-rate-in-some-key-counties-n284157