Windham Selectmen Get Caught! City Officials Chose Voting Group THEY KNEW Was Known for Providing Cover for Voting Machine Companies and an “Absence of Values”

Bruce Breton, one of Windham’s Selectman, is the only Selectman who did not vote for Mark Lindeman for the upcoming forensic audit. Bruce voted for Jovan Pulitzer to be Windham’s forensic analyst. On Monday night, the Windham Board of Selectmen held a public meeting to discuss their choice of an analyst for the forensic audit… The post Windham Selectmen Get Caught! City Officials Chose Voting Group THEY KNEW Was Known for Providing Cover for Voting Machine Companies and an “Absence of Values” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Windham Selectmen Get Caught! City Officials Chose Voting Group THEY KNEW Was Known for Providing Cover for Voting Machine Companies and an “Absence of Values”

Bruce Breton, one of Windham’s Selectman, is the only Selectman who did not vote for Mark Lindeman for the upcoming forensic audit. Bruce voted for Jovan Pulitzer to be Windham’s forensic analyst.

On Monday night, the Windham Board of Selectmen held a public meeting to discuss their choice of an analyst for the forensic audit team that will investigate the largest discrepancy between machine and hand counts for any election in the history of New Hampshire. At the meeting , 3 of the 4 selectmen announced their support for the team of Dr. Andrew Appel and Mark Lindeman’s Verified Voting.

It was discovered the next morning that New Hampshire officials selected an operative who alleged the election fraud claims were fake and worked to try to get the Maricopa County audit shut down earlier this month!

This letter denouncing the New Hampshire audit WAS SIGNED by Mark Lindeman from Verified Voting!

So the local officials in Windham picked Mark Lindeman who is a far-left operative who has NO RESPECT for the auditing process at all and believes it is unnecessary!

On Saturday a reader tipped us off to another indictment of Mark Lindeman and Verified Voting.

According to an article at Fast Company back in December 2019, a year before the 2020 election, two experts working with Mark Lindeman and Verified Voting quit the organization over claims it was untrustworthy and was providing cover for the companies that make and sell the voting machines.

We were sent a copy of the resignation letter by Richard DeMillo to Verified Voting in 2019.

DeMillo is the Charlotte B. and Roger C. Warren Professor of Computing and Executive Director of the Center at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, Georgia.

This was sent to the Board of Directors of Verified Voting in December of 2019 nearly a year before the 2020 presidential election.

At that time it was so apparent to even its board members that Verified Voting was a very controversial and untrustworthy operation.

The Selectmen in Windham, New Hampshire chose Verified Voting to “audit” their ballots and machines from the 2020 election.

It appears now that this was an organized decision by the Selectmen to undermine the audit.

Here is a copy of Dr. DeMillo’s resignation letter.

Via The San Mateo County News:

December 1, 2019
Barbara Simons, Chair Verified Voting Board of Directors

Dear Barbara,

It is with profound regret that I resign from the VV Board of Advisors. When you invited me to join the board shortly after the 2016 elections, I agreed for three reasons. First, Verified Voting’s promise to promote policy positions that “are based on scientific evidence and understood best practices in election administration” offered hope in addressing a decade or more of willful neglect of those principles in Georgia. Second, I thought that lending my name to the organization would help in the fight to eliminate vulnerable, unauditable voting machines in Georgia and nationwide. Third, I understood that my voice would be joined with the voices of respected colleagues to be sought out, valued, and debated by the organization’s leadership. However, it soon became apparent that Verified Voting’s policy positions were unpredictable, contradictory, and not aligned with the values I once believed we shared. On more than one occasion, Verified Voting has taken contradictory public stances in the span of a few days, undercutting allies and supporters. The pattern of espousing new positions and making public statements that take local VV stakeholders by surprise is nothing new. Rather than seeking out advice, Verified Voting has gone to great lengths to
avoid it.

I have tried over the last two years to engage in dialog, but you, Marian, and her team have been unwilling to have face to face conversations, even when we are in the same city and sometimes the same building. These apparent disconnects have been seized upon and exploited in Georgia and other states to weaken, not enhance, the cause of accurate and verifiable elections. Although my concerns have been growing for some time now, Verified Voting’s involvement in a “pilot RLA” in Georgia following the recent election makes it impossible to continue as a member of the advisory board. VV issued and supported misleading public statements that those pilots confirm outcomes and even prove the security of new election systems. Verified Voting’s seal of approval for the security theatrics in Bartow County undermines efforts to make elections more accountable. This exercise conducted behind closed doors and billed as a practice run—even if flawlessly conducted—could only confirm the correctness of the tally of the unverified (and therefore possibly corrupted) ballots, not that the ballots tallied were correctly marked. No audit based on an untrustworthy audit trail can confirm the correctness of the outcome. Billing such an exercise as an RLA and touting it as a proof of security plays into the hands of cynics. Whatever benefits accrue from this practice, it does not help public understanding to aid election officials in misstating the results. A similar false claim was made in Pennsylvania the following week. Verified Voting subsequently tweeted a weak repudiation of the incorrect Pennsylvania claim, but let stand an identical incorrect assertion in Georgia. That unrefuted statement will surely be a factor in future litigation. Most recently, Marian’s essay, posted on verifiedvoting.org shortly after Philip Stark’s November 22 resignation from the board, doubled down on these and other expanded claims. It is a short essay, but I count at least nine distinct contradictions of prior Verified Voting statements and published positions. In light of this, the promise to pursue policy positions based on scientific evidence and best practices rings hollow. I can no longer lend my name to Verified Voting. Some, including anti-transparency activists, conflicted supporters of ballot marking devices, politicians trying to silence and intimidate critics, and opponents of evidence-based policy, have already mischaracterized the mainly technical debates within the election integrity community. If they are successful at confusing the public about the correctness of election outcomes in Georgia and elsewhere, I fear it will be in some measure due to the absence of values once embraced by Verified Voting.

Respectfully,
Richard DeMillo
Charlotte B. and Roger C. Warren Professor of Computing and Executive Director of the Center for 21st Century Universities Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA

The post Windham Selectmen Get Caught! City Officials Chose Voting Group THEY KNEW Was Known for Providing Cover for Voting Machine Companies and an “Absence of Values” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.