TGP reported that the recounting of the ballots in Windham, New Hampshire, from the 2020 election revealed 300 votes that damaged the Republicans.
Right after their report, the New Hampshire State Senate voted for an audit in the Windham, NH Presidential election performed on November 3, 2020.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
Granite Grok reported on this story.
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.
Furthermore, on March 6, TGP shared that New Hampshire Secretary of State Gardner allowed a complete forensic audit of the Windham voting machines and the ballots.
On May 2, TGP and 100% Fed Up interviewed Ken Eyring, an activist from NH, and Bruce Breton, NH, Selectman. They talked about the selection of Verified Voting to perform the audit of the 2020 election.
Five Windham Selectmen were responsible for hiring the auditors. Brice Breton is the lone vote to select Jovan Pulitzer to be an auditor for the upcoming forensic audit. One Selectman didn’t want to vote, and the remaining three choose Mark Lindeman from Verified Voting to observe the audit of the 2020 election ballots in the conservative community.
Later, the Windham crowd appeared at the next Selectmen meeting to express their concern over the appointment of Lindeman. He was the person who a few days ago signed a letter to Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, saying that he’s doesn’t support the Maricopa audit.
TGP said that NH Secretary of State William Gardner selected the second auditor for the Windham audit. Harri Hursti was her choice. He’s an Advisory Board member for Verified Coting, which additionally concerns the residents.
Moreover, the third auditor will be Philip Stark.
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.
Once the audit started, Granite Grok’s Steve MacDonald reported the unusual late-night visit to the audit’s chamber by NH’s Assistant AG Ann Edwards.
Granite Grok reported.
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?
100% Fed Up talked to the ‘’New Hampshire Chairman of the Government Integrity Project’’ Ken Eyring. The Chairman believed that the audit wasn’t properly conducted.
The NH Attorney General’s office hasn’t considered performing any meaningful investigation from the start.
Ken Eyring wrote for the Granite Grok in his blog. There he explains the current condition of the NG election audit.
‘’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 Bill’s sponsor.
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. ‘’
Steve MacDonald asked why the NH Ag’s office controls the audit and commanding the auditors.