New Hampshire First District congressional candidate Andy Martin questions whether one of his opponents, Eddie Edwards, has the professional credentials and temperament to serve in congress

Unlike the Union Leader or WMUR, New Hampshire congressional candidate Andy Martin analyzes the employment history of one of his opponents, Eddie Edwards, and finds significant questions, as well as a gap in the evidence necessary to understand why Edwards was paid $160,000 for “racial discrimination.” Martin is a highly respected analyst and investigator, which is what New Hampshire needs in Washington to represent the state. “Unless you want to make a fool of yourself, like our current federal legislators have done,” Martin says, “you need experience to manage congressional oversight of the executive branch. Edwards can’t do that. I have a history, even extending to this primary campaign, of doing what it takes to bring out the facts and work for transparency,” Martin says.

News from:
Republican candidate for Congress
New Hampshire-
First Congressional District
P.O. Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Fax (866) 214-3210


To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage


This letter is one of New Hampshire First District congressional candidate Andy Martin’s continuing reports to the citizens of his district

Martin explains why, based on Eddie Edwards’ checkered employment experience, no major company or enterprise would hire him. Martin says if Edwards is not good enough to be hired, why would anyone vote for him?

(MANCHESTER, NH)(September 6, 2018)

Dear New Hampshire Citizen:

This is my thirteenth letter to you from the congressional campaign trial. I hope you enjoy getting an unfiltered view of the primary campaign instead of the “fake news” broadcast and published by local media (a new story on media fake news coming later today, see below).

Today I would like to discuss with you whether Eddie Edwards is qualified to be a congressman. The Union Leader endorsed Edwards a week ago. I said nothing because newspaper endorsements are expressions of opinion, not fact, and editors are entitled to their opinions. But Wednesday the Union Leader published a second, desperation endorsement of Edwards (please see link [1] below). Obviously the UL is worried Edwards is not connecting with voters despite biased coverage in his favor.

The constitutional requirements to be a Representative in the U. S. House are minimal. Edwards meets them. Likewise, I am not personally hostile to Edwards. I present my analysis based on investigation of the facts, but I like Eddie. Politics being politics you sometimes have to pulverize people you like. And I have been just as tough, probably more so, on Andy Sanborn.

So is Edwards qualified? What are the facts? I present the evidence, with my analysis. You decide whether if Edwards were a job applicant, any major firm would hire him. Would you hire the man?

Edwards served several years as an enlisted man in the Navy. He received an honorable discharge. But literally millions of men and women have enlisted in the military. Being an enlisted person does not qualify you for high office (unless getting to see how stupid officers can be from a more humble point of view is a qualification). Honorable service? Absolutely. Qualification for a high legislative position in Washington, not at all.

Although Edwards has airbrushed the five years or so he spent as a correctional officer in Strafford County out of his resume, he apparently served honorably and properly. Honorable service again? Absolutely. Is working in a jail a qualification for high office? Very doubtful.

In 1995 Edwards was hired by the Liquor Commission. He must have done a good job because ten years later he was promoted to “chief.” Honorable service again? Absolutely. Qualification for high office? I don’t see how.

In 2005 Edwards was promoted to “Chief” of Liquor Enforcement. This is where his troubles begin. Four years after being promoted to a policy-making position Edwards filed two complaints in 2009 charging racial discrimination. He alleged, apparently from the time he became chief, he was the subject of racial discrimination. But the Attorney General has refused to release the complaint files, and I am going to court to get them.

How did Edwards change from being a fine employee, worthy of promotion to an executive position, to become the target of constant bigotry? I don’t believe it. Edwards had served capably in jobs where he was not a policy maker. Once he became an executive, there is a serious doubt he was able to manage complex relationships. There is a massive gap between being a police officer and being a chief, between being a low-level manager and being a senior executive with complex and occasionally conflicting responsibilities. Edwards apparently was never able to make the transition.

Edwards’ successor says he inherited a Liquor Commission that was “dysfunctional,” and characterized by “mistrust” and “self-interest” (please see link [2] below):

I have worked in the law enforcement and investigations field for 20 plus years—most recently as the Division Director of the New Hampshire Liquor Commission, Division of Enforcement. These experiences, and the successes I have realized with this work, furnish me with a high level of knowledge and practical expertise in policy establishment and enforcement applicable to small, medium, and large-sized organizations.

My background as Division Director contributes to and reinforces my capacity to back these claims. As the state’s chief of liquor enforcement and licensing I turned around a dysfunctional agency, known for its endemic mistrust and self-interest, to one of shared mission and individual empowerment. The enhanced internal culture led to a much-improved public perception and operative working approach.

Either Eddie Edwards and the Union Leader are right, and Edwards did a great job at the Commission, or Edwards’ leadership was a disaster as his successor states. Where are the investigations and analysis by WMUR and the Union Leader to determine which version is true?

Based on secret files which the state refuses to release, Edwards walked away with $160,000 for “racial discrimination.” If Eddie Edwards won’t authorize the release of his secret files you are crazy to vote for him. What is he hiding? What do you need to know that he doesn’t want you to know?

From the fiasco at the Liquor Commission we turn to more tranquil employment. Edwards was hired as “chief of police” for a town of 800 residents. There is no suggestion that Edwards did anything but serve competently, but how competently do you have to be to patrol a town of 800 people with five or six officers? A qualification for congress? Be serious.

Edwards then turned up on the staff of former Congressman Frank Guinta. Here we have another serious problem. While working as a congressional employee, subject to a strict code of ethics for congressional employees, Edwards continued to operate a lobbying business in Concord. He claims he did not violate congressional ethics. Guinta says he didn’t even know of Edwards’ secret employment. Edwards may or may not have violated the law; but he skated awful close to a violation of congressional ethics, if not actually crossing the line. How can a full-time, federal congressional employee also be operating a private lobbying business on the side? It may not “smell,” but there is a distinct odor.

My campaign manager is a retired analyst and investigator (that’s all I can say). Me? I can’t afford to retire. But it is obvious that I did my homework, which is what a congressman is supposed to do, on both Sanborn (over 1,000 pages of documents released to date) and Edwards (secured release of Settlement Agreement). The media obviously did not do their homework, and they continue to portray Edwards as a viable candidate when he would be easy pickings for the Democrats in November.

So we come to the bottom line: would you hire Edwards for a senior legislative/executive job based on his history of conflicts? No major enterprise would. Then why should you vote for him and hand the Democrats an easy seat in congress?

Now you can see why I accuse WMUR and the Union Leader of airing/publishing “fake news.” You simply can’t trust their coverage. My research is annotated with links to my sources. They don’t have any sources except the public relations handouts of the candidates themselves. As an aside, Edwards would be one of a dwindling number of congressmen without a college degree.

Finally, today is “debate” day on WMUR and in the Union Leader (which will no doubt censor the event). I encourage you to watch because that will be the complete and unedited program. Details on the debate are found below. Debates are healthy and are the ultimate form of modern democracy. Later today we hope to have a pre-debate story exposing more fake news on WMUR and in the Union Leader.

Based on the deficiencies of Edwards and Sanborn, I may not be your first choice to vote for. But I may be your only choice. I know how to fight the Democrats. My opponents do not. If you vote for them, they will be slaughtered in November.

Or you can believe the Union Leader, which says Edwards has an unblemished record of “character and service.” Fake news.


Andy Martin


Coming Thursday afternoon: WMUR, Union Leader, more fake news


How to view GOP candidates’ debate Thursday night

TIME: 7:00 P.M. Eastern

Go to

There will be a red banner across the top, “Granite State Debate..” Click on the link at the right of the screen, and presto, it’s on. It will be “live” just before 7:00 P.M. Thursday.

After the debate, it will probably be a blue banner with “on demand.”


LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):


[2] [two entries]

New citations after emailing:


Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With fifty years of background in radio and television and with five decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to:; also see

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also;

He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” []. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at and

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.


Andy’s opinion columns are posted at, and

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]


© Copyright by Andy Martin 2018 – All Rights Reserved


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s