Windham election audit smoking gun?

Editor’s note: The town of Windham, New Hampshire, conducted an audit of its Nov. 3, 2020 election, in which a hand recount one week later revealed that four Republican candidates each gained about 300 votes not counted on Election Night. Vermont uses the same AccuVote-OS vote tabulators owned by Dominion and managed by LHS Associates, of Salem, N.H. The following article by Ken Eyring has been republished with permission from GraniteGrok.

By Ken Eyring

The forensic audit for the Windham November general election mandated all of the ballots be fed through all of the voting machines. They were. In order to simulate the general election, the machines had to be reset to 11/03/20 before the ballots were fed through the machines. They were.

But that is a misleading statement.

After all of the ballots were run through all four voting machines in the audit, the results for each machine were similar to each other and similar to the hand recount that was overseen by the SOS office on Nov. 12, 2020 (+/- 55 votes).

That indicates that there was nothing nefarious with any of the machines on election day, even though there were significant anomalies in the results for all races on Windham Machine #2 on election day from the top of the ticket and entirely down-ballot, where it appeared that the votes were flipped between Republican and Democrat candidates.

In order to easily understand the potential smoking gun that is exposed below, you must first understand how easy it is to rig the election with the AccuVote OS voting machines that are used to count 85%-91% of the votes in NH – including Windham.

Are the AccuVote OS machines trustworthy?

No. But don’t take my word for it. Harri Hursti was one of the forensic auditors. He is on record as saying it is easy to “control” the results on election night.

According to excellent reporting by Joe Hoft at the Gateway Pundit, Hursti testified to the NH House Election Law Committee hearings on September 19, 2007, that NH’s Diebold AccuVote OS machines and memory cards are untrustworthy.

“If you are believing on poll tape that doesn’t mean a thing because I can control the whole thing over whatever logic and accuracy that you perform just before the election. Because I have control. I can compare the date, the time. And so in order to be producing fraudulent tape, I will be producing fraudulent tape only on Tuesday evening. And I don’t worry about what ballots go through.”

When Hursti says, “I will be producing fraudulent tape only on Tuesday evening,” he is referring to any Election Day — which historically takes place on Tuesdays. Keep in mind that for this audit, the machines were reset to November 3, 2020 (11/03/20) which is the same day as the general in Windham. All ballots were processed on 11/03/20.

The Diebold AccuVote machines that Hursti testified about in 2007 are the same machines that Hursti just audited for the Windham Incident.

The infamous Windham machine #2

Prior to the audit, the public became accustomed to the machine numbers that are listed in the paper tapes from election day that was compiled by Gabe Toubia, Tom Murray and myself.  Here is the header information from the paper tape that identifies Windham Machine #2 as the machine that displayed many anomalies from the Nov. 3, 2020, general election. Notice the Machine ID is “2”.

The auditors arbitrarily renumbered each machine for the audit. Election day Windham Machine #2 was renumbered by the auditors to be Audit Machine #1. This is the paper tape from Audit Machine #1.

Based on the cross-comparison explained above, the paper tape for Audit Machine #1 (shown immediately above) was taken from the audit paper tape for Audit Machine #1 below (shown on the left). That machine represents Windham Machine #2 from election day.

Transaction Logs

If I understand these correctly, the transaction logs explain the different processes and configuration settings that were performed on each machine before and during the audit.  All four of Windham’s AccuVote machines are displayed below.

Notice the sequence of operations that have been identified within the red boxes on the paper tapes for all four machines include the following log entries:

SESSION START
DATE: 11/03/20
ZERO TOT REPORT
BAL COUNT START
ENDER CARD
BAL COUNT END
TOTALS REPORT
SESSION START
DATE: 11/05/20
TOTALS REPORT

Transaction Log Discrepancy for Audit Machine No. 1 (election day machine #2)

Please take a look at each underline in the Transaction Logs which identify SESSION START dates. You will see an additional underline ONLY for Audit Machine #1 (Windham Machine #2). BEFORE the ballots were fed through Audit Machine #1, the date on that machine was changed from 11/03/20 to 11/04/20 and the “COUNT RESTARTED.”  It is important to note that Nov. 4, 2020, was not election day.  In Hursti speak that means it was NOT TUESDAY.  Remember Hursti’s testimony to the House Election Law Committee in 2007:

I have control. I can compare the date, the time. And so in order to be producing fraudulent tape, I will be producing fraudulent tape only on Tuesday evening. And I don’t worry about what ballots go through.

Why was the date on Audit Machine #1 (Windham Machine #2) changed to 11/04/20? This is disturbing, knowing that it could potentially alter that result the machine would produce based on Hursti’s statement above. Remember, Audit Machine #1 (Windham Machine #2) is the only machine that had down ballot anomalies during the general election on Nov. 3, 2020. Every other machine was run with the date set to 11/03/20. Why was the date changed on only one machine, the infamous Windham Machine #2 (Audit Machine #1) from the general election that had down ballot anomalies?

While observing Hursti this past Wednesday when he was reviewing the memory card on one of the machines, it appeared that something clearly disturbed him. This tweet appears to downplay what he discovered — but it doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer regarding his statement, “One of the cards differs more from others and will be further studied.”

I want to be clear that I am not accusing Hursti of anything wrong or nefarious. But it is important to remember that it is the memory cards that make it easy to hack the machines to produce “fraudulent tape,” but “only on Tuesday evening,” so this is a big deal that warrants answers.

During the audit, there was only one auditor who had access to those memory cards — with no checks and balances. That is unfortunate and disturbing.

Multiple reports printed

Look at the Transaction Logs above and notice there were two “TOTALS REPORTS” printed from each machine. The totals reports show the results for every race on the ballot for each machine. The date of the first Totals Report that was printed for Audit Machine #1 (Windham Machine #2) would have been offset by one day from the date on the other three machines. That date discrepancy would have been a red flag if that report had been made public. But I don’t believe we were shown those reports where the dates did not match.

Instead, I believe we were only shown the second reports that were printed. The ones that show the reconfigured “SESSION START” date of 11/05/20 for all machines. All of those match each other with a report date of 11/05/20.

It appears changing the date was a deliberate action, as can be seen by the fact that 11/03/20 was entered into EVERY machine — including Audit Machine #1 (Windham Machine #2). Why was the date on Audit Machine #1 (Windham Machine #2) subsequently changed to 11/04/20 along with the setting “BAL COUNT START” — BEFORE running the ballots through — knowing that it could potentially alter the result that machine would produce based on Hursti’s statement above.

The public deserves answers from Mr. Hursti, Associate AG Anne Edwards, and the entire AG’s and SOS offices. I have little confidence they will be satisfactorily provided.

For those who read my posts, I am in excellent health, I am not suicidal, I am not depressed and I am not prone to accidents. The same goes for my family. I say this now because I have been asked multiple times by a significant number of people over the past few weeks if I was afraid for my safety.  My answer has and remains to be “no.” God will protect me. But from the treatment I received while at the audit from the AG’s office, I do not have the same level of confidence that our top law enforcement office would offer any level of protection at all.

FYI, #2 is coming soon.

H/T: To the NH Voter Integrity Group for pointing me in this direction. They pointed out that the dates had been changed for all of the machines to 11/05/20. That is what got me looking at the unique date discrepancy regarding Audit Machine #1 (Windham Machine No.2).

12 thoughts on “Windham election audit smoking gun?

  1. Breaking: Windham Auditors Tampered With Machine Tape Data
    By Michelle Edwards – May 28, 2021
    https://uncoverdc.com/2021/05/28/breaking-windham-auditors-tampered-with-machine-tape-data/

    Looks like what happened was Hursti effectively deleted all of the data when he shut the machine down following suspicious claim that “a bearing had seized” According to the “manual” solution is to shut machine down lol…starting date was switched from crucial date 11/3/2021 to 11/4/2021 essentially erasing all of the evidence.

    Clearly states with evidence claims made by Hursti were false. This stinks to high heavens and personally believe this is faaar from over.

    “Todd, a financial auditor and founder of NH Voter Integrity Group, reported that activity on a computer with firmware software on it would be listed on an internal audit report. Indeed, this is the case with Windham’s machines, which are serviced and maintained by LHS Associates. Interestingly, LHS President Jeff Silvestro was present multiple days at the audit. Upon looking closer at the pictures of the machine’s audit report from May 12, Todd noticed the following specific line items among others:”

    • “The report alleged that the privatization of the administration of the election in key battleground states, and its effective removal from the control of properly authorized local and state governments was strengthened by improper “claw back provisions” attached to grants given to counties and cities by CTCL.
      emphasis added
      Under those provisions, local governments would be required to return the CTCL donations if they ***failed to implement the more controversial and legally dubious elements of the plan, including the use of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots and the requirement that counting centers be consolidated in a way that made observation of the counting process by GOP observers more difficult.”***
      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/18/report-mark-zuckerbergs-419-million-non-profit-contributions-improperly-influenced-2020-presidential-election/
      added emphasis
      “It is worth noting that New Hampshire, as previously reported by UncoverDC, received a total of
      sixty-three donations (including Windham) ***from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) in their “2020 Elections COVID-19 Grants.” Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated at least $350 million to CTCL in the months leading up to the 2020 election.*** CTCL then distributed the funds in the form of grants to numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States so they could hire additional staff, purchase mail-in ballot processing equipment, 888and other measures they considered essential to manage the election amid the COVID-19 pandemic.”***
      https://uncoverdc.com/2021/06/02/windham-nh-update-voters-rally-for-statewide-audit/

      So NH election poisoned along with other key states as there were very specific rules in order to receive the bribes to steal elections – next qustion is how much did VT get to fix ours.

  2. COUNTING ERROR in New Hampshire
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/state-and-local-election-reforms-are-long-overdue

    The hand recount of the Windham (Rockingham District 7) New Hampshire House 2020 race revealed Dominion election counting machines under-counted all four Republicans by about 300 votes. Gee, how is this possible?

    This was no a trivial matter. The difference was 1,363 votes out of 10,006 vote cast, 13.63%

    A forensic audit, mandated by the NH Legislature, had determined the reason for the huge discrepancy between the election day results and subsequent recount of Windham’s November 3, 2020, State Rep. race where a difference of 1,363 total votes from just 10,006 ballots was uncovered.
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/update-new-hampshire-house-passes-sb43-mandate-audit-windhams-disturbing-2020-election-results/

    This miscount was revealed, because St. Laurent, Democrat, who lost by 24 votes, challenged the count, and got a recount.

    Soti, Republican was credited with an additional 297 votes
    St. Laurent lost 99 votes
    As a result, instead of losing by 24 votes, St. Laurent ended up losing by 420 votes!!! Yikes!!

    St. Laurent must not be glad she asked for a recount, because the recount of the votes of the other 3 Republicans showed each of them had shorted about 300 votes as well.

    Here are the results before and after the recount:

    Soti, Republican, before recount 4480 votes, after recount 4777 votes, gain 297 votes
    St. Laurent, before recount 4456, after recount 4357, a LOSS of 99 votes
    Margin, before recount 24, after recount 420.

    Griffin, Republican, before recount 5292, after recount 5591 votes, gain 299 votes
    Azibert, Democrat, before recount 2787 votes, after recount 2808 votes, gain 28 votes
    Margin, before recount 2505 votes, after recount 2783 votes

    Lyon, Republican, before recount 4786 votes, after recount 5039 votes, gain 303 votes
    Roman, Democrat, before recount 3415 votes, after recount 3443 votes, gain 28 votes
    Margin, before recount 1371 votes, after recount 1646 votes

    McMahon, Republican, before recount 5256 votes, after recount 5554 votes, gain 298 votes
    Singueau, Democrat, before recount 2764 votes, after recount 2782 votes, gain 18 votes
    Margin, before recount 2492 votes, after recount 2772 votes

    Windham had used a ballot folding machine that caused a fold to be in the same place as a bubble. As a result, the counting machine rejected votes. Other Towns likely did not use a folding machine.

    NOTE: Late night visit by NH election official, as watched over by NH state police, at 11:15 pm on Wednesday, May 12, to add 4 more boxes with ballots. The Windham Town clerk had signed off on 23 boxes, but now the auditors have 27?

    Why was an associate NH Attorney General, caught on camera, in the building in which were stored the “secured” Windham Ballots, at 11:15 PM, Wednesday night.
    Right after that time, the surveillance cameras GO BLANK for about one hour!!!
    What in hell was she doing?

  3. So I watched the video the 3 hour one, very nice btw….what struck me was the two options they gave you over and over, framing the conversation.

    1) it had to be a one time malware that disappeared.
    2) it had to be a permanent malware they could detect.

    This is classic play.

    3) how about a malware that was good for 2x? The election and then the audit? Right, nobody is going to do a third.

    There’s a ton of smoke in NH…….give it some oxygen! You guys are over ground zero.

    God Speed.

    • There could be malware that stays on until a certain code is entered?

      Isn’t it amazing that in America we have to go through so many safe guards for an election? It’s just proving the point alone that their is serious corruption and tampering, because we have to go through so many safe guards aside from the machines alone.

      Clearly the penalties for cheating are not high enough.

      And here we are in Vermont, with same machines and perhaps older software that can be more easily hacked according to Harri in the video.

      Yet, nobody in Vermont is even raising the question. Nothing to see here.

      Isn’t it amazing how much effort it took in NH to investigate a clear corruption? Intentional or not? And now a similar pattern seen in other towns and there is not an immediate call to do a state wide investigation?

      We are the masters of cover up in VT. Envy of the criminal world.

  4. It is ashame people don’t want to take a chance that their candidate will not win so they have to stuff the ballot. What happened to just getting all the people you know to go vote and let God do the rest?If you have to make illegal ballots for a person doesn’t say too much for that person.

  5. My opinion of the 2016 election, publicly expressed at the time, was that the Progressives were deluded into a false sense of security by pre-election polls; they were not prepared for the number of votes they needed to manufacture to overcome Trump’s popularity. Jill Stein’s ill-advised Detroit recount exemplifies the lengths to which they went; certified ballot boxes found, when the seals were broken, to have far fewer votes than the certification; thirty seven percent of districts to have more votes than they should. They weren’t going to lose again in 2020! But they once again underestimated by how much they were actually going to lose and were pushed to patently absurd heights of manipulation to get Biden (and who knows how many down ticket candidates despite their large House failure) into office. The Progressive overreach has revealed them to be totalitarian Marxist clowns with a Fascist methodology and Mussolini’s centralized consolidation of power goal. Before dismissing this as conspiracy theory, note that the tactic has been done successfully over and over. The Bolsheviks were not elected to power.

  6. Those type of easy hacks have been known to a lot of politicians, and, of course, machine vendors, who likely had whispered about the election outcome “capabilities” of the machines to election officials, before they bought the machines.

    In Pennsylvania, Trump was so far ahead on late Tuesday evening, that the ballot count HAD TO BE STOPPED, to assess the situation.

    About 280,000 ballots for Biden, in envelopes, using Pennsylvania addresses, had been prepared in Long Island, at least a month prior to the election.

    They were trucked by Jesse, the USPS truck driver, at least two weeks before the election, from the Bethpage Postal Center to the Harrisburg Postal Center.

    The 280,000 ballots had been distributed to Democrat-controlled counting centers, “for insurance”

    They were needed, as it turned out, plus several hundred thousand more Biden “votes”, that came out of the woodworks, during the next few days.

    • MANUFACTORING PHANTOM VOTES IN BETHPAGE, LONG ISLAND, NY, FOR USE IN PENNSYLVANIA

      This article describes in detail how up to 280,000 Phantom ballots were manufactured in Long Island, NY, transported from the USPS Center in Bethpage, Long Island, NY, via the USPS Center in Harrisburg, PA, to the USPS Center in Lancaster, PA, on October 21, TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION

      Jesse, the trailer-truck driver, who transported the ballots, left his trailer at the loading dock of the USPS Center in Lancaster, PA, and went home with his tractor.

      When he came back the next day to pick up, what he thought would be, his empty trailer (he had been doing this for 18 months each day), found HIS TRAILER WAS GONE. It still has not been found.

      This likely was just ONE batch of PHANTOM ballots, later converted to counted votes, as part of the extended “count all the votes” mantra.

      The leaders of the USPS Centers had to be complicit (aiding and abetting) to make the fraud happen.

      Those ballots, by themselves, were more than sufficient to swing PA from Trump to Biden.

      Make sure to read the URL
      https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/here-is-a-write-up-about-a-voting-irregularity-that-led-to-many

      • Pennsyklvania officials just toured and met with Maricopa officials and looks like they plan to shake this down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *