NEW HAMPSHIRE Forensic Election Audit Update: Asst. AG Seen Walking Toward Table Covered With “Secured” Ballots At 11:15 PM Before Camera Footage Went Out For An Hour

https://100percentfedup.com ^ | Patty McMurray | May 16, 2021

[Red Badger]

VIDEOS AT LINK...........................

[PIF]

New Hampshire, the state that has the motto Live Free or Die, continues to vote for socialism and death.

[White Lives Matter]

This is unacceptable. The assistant AG is not supposed to be there. I smell treachery.

[who knows what evil?]

Damndest thing, isn’t it?

[BitWielder1]

So when the auditors detect a discrepancy, there is something wrong with the audit?
I bet we will be hearing a lot of that.

[Red Badger]

The left will do everything in their power to discredit the audit(s) so that they can claim them to be ‘fake’........................

[Mr. K]

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)

[Red Badger]

Because they know they can get away with it......................

[rlmorel]

"...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 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.

[stylin19a]

The Windham clerk signed off 23 boxes, but the auditors have 27?

wonder if the 1st 23 were somehow marked\identified\photo'd as such

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I think we are seeing another Big Lie! Thanks for posting.

[rlmorel]

(sorry, last post was missing HTML)

"...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.

[rlmorel]

Your point you make is a good one, and it is one that we should all keep in mind. If these "errors" we see were just machine errors or inadvertent errors, there would be a more even distribution of beneficiaries. That is, President Trump would have occasionally benefited. It brings to mind the following:

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?"

[ConservativeInPA]

Interesting description you provide.

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.

[Don Corleone]

This is going to end up before the SCOTUS. What they can or will do God only knows.

[Red Badger]

... SCOTUS.................

[neverevergiveup]

The middle one looks a bit like a Bush.

[Red Badger]

He does favor Jeb.....................

[Bon of Babble]

Before the camera footage went out for an hour

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.

[Robert A Cook PE]

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