On February 11, the Gateway Pundit reported about a November hand recount in the Rockingham District 7 NH House Race in Windham, New Hampshire, that found that the voting machines shorted EVERY REPUBLICAN by roughly 300 votes.
Shortly after their report, the New Hampshire state senate voted 24-0 to force the state to perform an audit of the Windham, New Hampshire state representative races on November 3, 2020.
Granite Grok reported:
The Town of Windham used Dominion machines to count paper ballots and upon a believable hand recount, it was confirmed each Republican was machine-cheated out of roughly 300 votes.
You would think this would have been solved by the Dominion machine company, the Secretary of State, the Elections Unit of the AG’s Office, or the laughable Ballot Law Commission. (Kathy Sullivan, d (Term expires July 1, 2024)
Just like every other state that used machines that alter ballot counts in favor of one political party over another – here we are.
On March 6th, the Gateway Pundit reported that New Hampshire Secretary of State Gardner agreed to a complete forensic audit of the Windham voting machines and the ballots.
On May 2, Jim Hoft from The Gateway Pundit and Patty McMurray from 100% Fed Up interviewed New Hampshire activist Ken Eyring and Windham, New Hampshire Selectman Bruce Breton about the controvesial selection of Verified Voting to conduct the forensic audit of the November election.
Of the five Windham Selectman tasked with hiring the team that would oversee the election audit, Bruce Breton was the lone vote to select Jovan Pulitzer as the auditor for the upcoming forensic audit. One Selectman abstained from voting, and the other three Windham Selectmen selected Mark Lindeman from Verified Voting to oversee the audit of the 2020 election ballots in the conservative community.
A large group of Windham citizens showed up to the next Selectmen meeting to express their concern over the appointment of Lindeman, who only days before signed a letter to Arizona Senate President Karen Fann stating that he was against their ongoing audit of Maricopa County.
From the Gateway Pundit – New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner chose the second investigator for the Windham audit.
Despite calls and emails from New Hampshire residents to choose Jovan Pulitzer, Gardner disappointed his constituents and chose Harri Hursti, who has years of experience investigating voting machines.
Harri Hursti is (or was) also an Advisory Board member for Verified Voting which is also very concerning.
Philip Stark was chosen as the third auditor to round out the process.
Philip Stark is a University of California mathematician who made headlines when he resigned from Verified Voting in 2019.
Alternet reported on Stark back in 2019.
Verified Voting, the national advocacy group seeking accountable election results, has been “providing cover” for untrustworthy new voting systems and the public officials buying them, according to an esteemed academic board member who has resigned in protest.
“VV [Verified Voting] is on the wrong side,” said the resignation letter from Philip Stark, a University of California mathematician who created a vote-verification tool being adopted by growing numbers of states that have been widely promoted by Verified Voting and advocacy groups following its lead.
Verified Voting is a heavyweight in election policy circles. It relies on its academic credentials to tell public officials to trust them and to dismiss competing views. To be accused by the inventor of its “gold-standard” audit solution of selling out while states and counties are buy voting technology that will be used into the 2030s is remarkable.
That tool Stark is concerned about is called a risk-limiting audit (RLA). It uses statistics and manual examinations of a subset of hand-marked paper ballots to assess with 95 percent certainty if the election results were accurate. The problem is that vendors have been pushing new voting systems that replace hand-marked ballots with computer-printed ballot summary cards. (The cards display a voter’s choices in text and barcodes. The cards’ barcodes are used to tally results at the process’s next stage.)
Stark and other critics say that the cards produced by a so-called ballot-marking device (BMD) may not be accurate because potentially insecure software sits between a voter’s fingers and the printout. Thus, Stark contends that his audit tool cannot assess if the reported result is correct. Also, BMD systems are far more costly than hand-marked ballot systems, he and other critics have said. They note that the acquisition costs are followed by per-machine service agreements designed to generate millions in annual revenues for vendors.
Stark is the third member of the Windham audit team.
Shortly after the audit began, Granite Grok’s Steve MacDonald, who’s done an amazing job of keeping Americans updated on the New Hampshire election irregularities, reported about what he believes was a highly unusual late-night visit to the room where the audit is taking place by none other than New Hampshire’s Assistant AG Ann Edwards.
Granite Grok – Before the security camera footage went out for about an hour, we see an image of NH Associate AG Anne Edwards walking toward a table covered with “secured” ballots – from the November election in Windham.
My contact in Windham tells me that, before the cameras go out, the state Trooper (also pictured) can be heard saying something to the effect that there’s nobody else in the room.
Of course not. It’s a secured room shortly before midnight.
We are interested in why the trooper would say that. Or why the live stream microphones were on before the cameras (all pictures and audio) were off for an hour and 15 minutes. But why was Ann Edwards from the NH AG’s office even there at that hour?
At 11:15 pm on Wednesday. And then the cameras go black for over an hour.
According to my source, on Thursday morning, there were four more boxes of ballots than the original number signed off by Nicole from the Town of Windham. The Windham clerk signed off 23 boxes, but the auditors have 27?
We spoke with New Hampshire Chairman of the Government Integrity Project (GIP) Ken Eyring, who explained that he believes the audit is not properly being conducted.
Since the very beginning, the NH Attorney General’s office has ignored performing any meaningful investigation.
Ken Eyring wrote a piece for the Granite Grok In his blog post, Eyring explains the current state of the election audit in NH:
The reluctance by the AG’s office from the beginning has carried over into the forensic audit process, where it appears they are stifling transparency at every opportunity. What is very concerning is that the law is clear who should be running the audit process… and it’s not the AG’s office.
The law states,
“The audit process shall be determined by the forensic election audit team.”
To be blunt, the AG’s office should be hands-off. Period. She has been told that, point-blank by Senator Giuda – the sponsor of the Bill. But Edwards continues to interject the AG’s office and its enforcers into the process when Sen. Giuda is not around.
Take a look at this interview I had with WMUR’s Adam Sexton this past Tuesday. It speaks volumes about the process and lack of transparency. This is the tip of the iceberg. I’ll provide more in the upcoming days.
According to Steve MacDonald, there’s more…
Why is the NH AG’s office, which refused to investigate the election discrepancies for months now and has no statutory authority, “taking over the audit” and directing the auditors (who for some unknown reason are listening to them)?
Why is the LHS Associates guy, Jeff Silvestro, whose business stands to lose large if these ballot-counting machines prove to be the source of the problem (we use them all over the state), there every day all day chatting up the NH AG’s office reps on site, Ann Edwards and Nick Chong Yen?