... SCOTUS.................
Posted on 05/17/2021 5:04:49 AM PDT by Red Badger
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.
Trending: VIMEO Cancels Mike Lindell’s My Pillow Account: “This is worse than what Twitter did to me and my company!”...Here’s How You Can Help
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)
Nope.
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.
Via The New Hampshire Department of Justice:
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?
New Hampshire, the state that has the motto Live Free or Die, continues to vote for socialism and death.
This is unacceptable. The assistant AG is not supposed to be there. I smell treachery.
Damndest thing, isn’t it?
The left will do everything in their power to discredit the audit(s) so that they can claim them to be ‘fake’........................
Why is it that whenever vote fraud is found, it ALWAYS benefits Democrats?
ALWAYS.
(Rhetorical - we know why- cheating is how they’ve doe it for decades)
Because they know they can get away with it......................
That all these Dominion systems use ballot images is well known...what I didn't know is in these ballot-marking devices that they apparently use (how widespread they are, I don't know, or if ALL their voting is using "ballot-marking devices (BMD). In my county, we are given a ballot, and we mark it up with a black marker. That ballot is fed into a machine which stores the ballot, and creates a "ballot image". As far as I know, that paper ballot I marked is never touched or examined again unless there is an audit. I believe (this is only speculation) that the ballot machine is emptied periodically after so many ballots are ingested, that removed batch is supposed to be tabulated, recorded, and entered into a process with a formal custody chain. (This is one of the areas the Maricopa County audit in AZ has apparently revealed huge flaws-this "custody chain" is completely wrong or not even present) Anyway, we use that paper ballot we mark up with a marker and feed into a machine. The places that use ballot-marking devices apparently don't hand the voter a ballot, but the voter approaches a machine with a monitor, they select their choices, and a ballot is printed out for them right at the machine to examine. The ballot apparently has two parts to record a vote: The human language words a voter can see, and...a QR bar code. I believe the problem is: there is no guarantee that the human language name of the candidate selected matches the QR bar code. That is, I may have voted for Trump, and the human language part says "Donald J. Trump", but...who knows what the QR bar code reads. Granted, if phones are not outlawed in the voting booth (who knows what whacky rules there are) you could read the code with your phone. But I get the measure of these crooked bastards right (and I think I do) there is no way they make that a QR code that translates into "Donald J. Trump". Too much risk of a nosy and inquisitive voter trying this, only to scan their Trump vote and see "Joseph R. Biden", and a sh*tstorm ensues. So, if anyone scans it with their phone, it would likely say "Xsqskkku13mmZG" or something like that. When asked, Dominion would likely say that is an...ahem..."security measure". Security for them, that is.
I think we are seeing another Big Lie! Thanks for posting.
"...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..."
That all these Dominion systems use ballot images is well known...what I didn't know is in these ballot-marking devices that they apparently use (how widespread they are, I don't know, or if ALL their voting is using "ballot-marking devices (BMD).
In my county, we are given a ballot, and we mark it up with a black marker. That ballot is fed into a machine which stores the ballot, and creates a "ballot image".
As far as I know, that paper ballot I marked is never touched or examined again unless there is an audit. I believe (this is only speculation) that the ballot machine is emptied periodically after so many ballots are ingested, that removed batch is supposed to be tabulated, recorded, and entered into a process with a formal custody chain. (This is one of the areas the Maricopa County audit in AZ has apparently revealed huge flaws-this "custody chain" is completely wrong or not even present)
Anyway, we use that paper ballot we mark up with a marker and feed into a machine.
The places that use ballot-marking devices apparently don't hand the voter a ballot, but the voter approaches a machine with a monitor, they select their choices, and a ballot is printed out for them right at the machine to examine.
The ballot apparently has two parts to record a vote: The human language words a voter can see, and...a QR bar code.
I believe the problem is: there is no guarantee that the human language name of the candidate selected matches the QR bar code.
That is, I may have voted for Trump, and the human language part says "Donald J. Trump", but...who knows what the QR bar code reads. Granted, if phones are not outlawed in the voting booth (who knows what whacky rules there are) you could read the code with your phone.
But if I get the measure of these crooked bastards right (and I think I do) there is no way they make that a QR code that translates into "Donald J. Trump". Too much risk of a nosy and inquisitive voter trying this, only to scan their Trump vote and see "Joseph R. Biden", and a sh*tstorm ensues. So, if anyone scans it with their phone, it would likely say "Xsqskkku13mmZG" or something like that. When asked, Dominion would likely say that is an...ahem..."security measure".
Security for them, that is.
Senator Joseph McCarthy once had a book ghostwritten called "America's Retreat From Victory" in which the subject is the acquiescence of American Foreign Policy to the wishes and demands of the Soviet Union during WWII and the few short years after.
Rightly or wrongly, Senator McCarthy accused General Marshall as being a driver of this approach. McCarthy may indeed have been mistaken in this accusation, but one of his justifications certainly rang true then, as it would today in evaluating this electoral fraud.
In the effort to determine if our soft and accommodating national approach to the Soviets during and after WWII was due to misfeasance (stupidity, incompetence, or ignorance) or malfeasance (deliberate actions taken to help the Soviets and hurt the West) McCarthy wrote:
"If Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would have dictated that at least some of his decisions [regarding the Soviets] would have served this country's interest. Even if Marshall had been innocent of guilty intention, how could he have been entrusted to guide this country further? [through his mid-war and post-war policies regarding the Soviets, China, and the subsequent Soviet domination of millions of people in what came to be "The Eastern Bloc"]
One could forklift that entire statement and change it to apply to the Maricopa County Election Board members (with their Leftist comrades and Trump-hating "Republican" allies) and the electoral processes:
"If the Maricopa County Election Board members were merely stupid, the laws of probability would have dictated that at least some of their decisions would have resulted in some increases in votes for Donald Trump. Even if the Maricopa County Election Board members had been innocent of guilty intention, how could they be entrusted to run Maricopa County elections further?"
Don't you find it rather complicated to do something so simple? What is wrong with a ballot filled out by the hand of a legal registered voter, and then counted by hand while being observed we all political parties represented? This isn't rocket science.
This is going to end up before the SCOTUS. What they can or will do God only knows.
... SCOTUS.................
The middle one looks a bit like a Bush.
He does favor Jeb.....................
Funny how those cameras seem to always go out at just the right moment, and it's all "normal and natural" - just as they went out right before Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
So easy to cheat, isn’t it?
Move on. Nothing to see here. We’re from the (democrat’s ) government, and everything is accurate and perfect. /sarchasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.