You're confused. It's not that there was a 99.99% accuracy rating in signing. It's that there was a "a 99.99% accuracy rate in performing correct signature verification procedures." - which means something very different from what you're saying. That is: signatures that should have been thrown out were thrown out, and signatures that were kept were good.

The fact that you misunderstood this says to me that either means you arguing in bad faith, or you're not actually able to step back from your beliefs and evaluate the facts with any kind of impartiality.

> For obvious reasons, legitimate forensic audits are not done by the same people that did the original count.

Right yes, that makes sense to me as well:

> Raffensperger’s office teamed up with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to conduct the audit.

Unless I'm much mistaken, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Republican secretary of state aren't usually the ones counting the ballots on election night.

You can move the goalpost to counties that haven't conducted audits like this all you want, but the point is how were the supposed fraudsters to know which counties were going to be key to the election AND not get audited, in order to get away with stealing an election? If every place you look you find no evidence, you can always keep saying let's look just one more place because THAT's where the fraud is! Each time you look is not just "no fraud found here" it's also "and the fraudsters knew not to do fraud here because they knew we'd look here". But I guess you can get around this by just saying that the audits were bad, and we need to conduct more audits that will somehow be good this time?

The worst part of all this is that the false claims of fraud are being used to purge voter rolls, and pass more voter id laws that make it harder for people to vote - because the people who are making these claims know that the harder it is to vote the better chance they have of winning. If that's not rigging an election, idk what is.