Correction: it is statistically impossible to not be fraud.
Obviously it was not impossible. Likewise the number 100% is also statistically possible. What is impossible is in an election that was very close to 50/50 for a large number of votes to be 100% for one candidate when the entire election was closer to 50/50.
Let me give you a true story. I was working in a school of 2,000 kids. We had about five Earth Science teachers and about 500 exams. There are 85 questions on each exam. However, after grading the first 3 questions on all 85 exams I made a prediction on how many would fail, how many would pass and how many would score higher than a certain grade. Since my numbers were 33%, 66%, etc. they were somewhat generic. But in the end they were accurate though not precise.
What is more telling to me is that it is impossible that anyone who works with numbers and statistics (which includes all key campaign staff and pollsters) doesn't know that it was fraud. So think of the implication for the MSM bringing on talking heads "debunking" claims of election fraud. If they are truly experts then it is impossible that they are not also liars. Obviously if they are not truly experts then the MSM lied saying they were.
This reminds me of an episode of numbers. The mathematician thinks someone is a fraud so they test him, can he predict the face color of the playing cards in the deck. Guy comes out and said you were right he couldn't do it, he got them wrong. The math guy asks "how many did he get wrong". The guy says all of them. He realizes getting 100% wrong is just as statistically impossible as getting 100% right.