By CNHT | February 28, 2017
by Ed Naile
On August 26, 2010 the NH AG received a complaint that Megan Jo Searles allegedly voted in both Pembroke and Allenstown in the January 8, 2010 Presidential Primary. But the complaint that triggered this investigation is never identified? No source of the complaint is mentioned. Was it a voter who recognized Ms. Searles which would mean there was a witness.? Who knows.
The investigation continues with the statement that Allenstown was the domicile of Ms. Searles. The fact that the word “domicile” is so elusive in New Hampshire it can never be determined – the AG makes that leap here. So much for the famous NH “loophole.”
The NH AG admits having documents from Pembroke and Allenstown. The Pembroke checklist shows Ms. Searles name checked off, as in, an irretrievable Pembroke vote cast. They also have the same-day voter domicile affidavit Searles signed on January 8, 2010 in Allenstown when she voted there. That vote counted as well. Documents from both towns show two votes cast.
Now it gets interesting.
Ms. Searles admits voting in Allentown where the NH AG says she is domiciled, without any mention of how they came to that conclusion. But Ms. Searles doesn’t remember if she voted in Pembroke. Does that pass the smell test? She doesn’t remember being at two crowded, official, polling places on the same day? But she remembers voting in Allenstown. Thank goodness she remembers that.
Let’s bring Meagan’s mother into the mix to back up her daughter’s voting story.
Megan’s mother says her daughter didn’t receive a ballot in Pembroke and that as far as she knows Megan was stopped at the polling place. What? Mom admits Megan was in Pembroke. This should mean there might be a simple explanation as to why Megan was on the Pembroke checklist in the first place. But no mention in the AG’s voter fraud investigation.
Let’s top this off with a real winner.
No election official remembers Megan Jo Searles voting in either town. That pretty much ends the NH AG’s investigation. Case closed.
For those of you who read about the overwhelming perception by the general public of widespread voter fraud and the constant reply by public officials, activists, and media, that voter fraud is almost non-existent you can see for yourself how most states go about prosecuting voter fraud. They prosecute voter fraud exactly like this – the don’t. But PROSECUTIONS are how voter fraud is measured.
In NH there is a quick way to begin investigating voter fraud. Get a real NH Attorney General – not a political hack. Use the fines from prosecuting voter fraud to fund more investigations.
There is also the possibility the new US Attorney could compel NH election officials to follow US Code 52 and hand over documentation of their efforts to keep our statewide database free of non-resident voters – if they have any.
Topics: Vote Fraud | Comments Off
Comments are closed.