Ed Martin says President Donald Trump is taking election security concerns seriously after former Colorado clerk Tina Peters met with him in the Oval Office to discuss election integrity and the security of voting systems.

Speaking with Eric Bolling, Martin said the meeting had taken place only hours earlier and described it as a significant development.

"Well, let me break some news. This is a big deal, Eric, and you're the first person that knows. I'm going to say something just hours ago, maybe two hours ago. Tina Peters, you know, from Colorado, was in the Oval Office meeting with the president on election integrity, and they were talking about the plans," Martin said.

Martin then pointed to what he described as a finding from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mullen involving foreign components used in election equipment.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

"And the one thing that they know is that Secretary Mullen of the Department of Homeland Security came out in late August and conceded and said, as a matter of law, a finding that there is the machines for voting, the election voting machines, use parts from China and Russia and foreign places and are therefore compromised. That's what Mullen said," Martin said.

According to Martin, that finding was accompanied by federal funding intended to help states move away from machines he described as compromised.

"That finding, when he finished that finding, he then said, 'And I have a billion dollars to help you states to do something other than use machines that are compromised," Martin said.

Martin acknowledged that elections are generally administered at the local level, drawing on his own experience running the election board in St. Louis. But he argued that issues involving safety and national security give the federal government a role.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

"And again, my point is this: you talk about local. It is a local election. I ran the election board in St. Louis. There is local control. However, the laws that govern the system, like safety and national security, are federal laws," Martin said.

He said Peters' visit to the Oval Office showed that Trump was personally engaged in the matter.

"And so, when Tina Peters, you know, famous Colorado clerk, was in the Oval Office today, just two hours ago, talking about this question, the president's taking it seriously," Martin said.

Martin then turned to the Save America Act, arguing that if Congress does not pass the measure, Trump may need to pursue other avenues.

"If Congress won't pass the Save America Act and they won't, then the president's going to have to do what he's going to do," Martin said.

He framed the question as one of national security rather than simply election administration.

"And it is not a local issue when it's national security, and it's clearly national security. So we'll see how it plays out, but again, four weeks from today, we have an election that has to be safe, has to be secure because it's the direction of the country," Martin said.

Bolling then raised the issue of Fox News' $787 million settlement over claims involving voting machines.

"I'm kind of chuckling because now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Fox settle a lawsuit for $787 million because someone, Maria Bartiromo, even who they've let go recently, said that some of these voting machines were compromised because Venezuela, wherever, but they were compromised, and they settled. They lost almost a billion dollars. They agreed instead of going to court. Did I miss? Am I missing this?" Bolling asked.

Martin rejected the idea that the settlement resolved the larger dispute over election systems, characterizing the litigation as part of what he called lawfare.

"No, no. Look, I mean that whole apparatus was done, and I would say it was done as a kind of lawfare thing," Martin said.

He argued that companies facing those lawsuits had reasons to settle beyond the merits of the underlying claims.

"They rolled up these people and these companies, and they settled because they were afraid of what? They were afraid that the legal system was going to manipulate them and expose all their business practices and Fox News emails and all that," Martin said.

Martin said the dispute over voting systems remained unresolved in his view because legal cases did not fully address the underlying issues.

"And the point here is, underlying it was an actual dispute over the systems, right? And yet you weren't even allowed to get to that," Martin said.

He compared that argument to litigation over the 2020 election.

"It's like when people say the 2020 election, it was on the up and up. There were 62 cases, and none of them found fraud. None of them got to the merits, and yet the talking point and the artificial news, you know, Trump called the fake news artificial news, has been spinning us to believe a lie," Martin said.

Martin closed by arguing that media messaging has shaped public perceptions of both Trump and election disputes over the past decade.

"And you know, Erica, you know, you know, you're a powerful communicator for these decades. People are persuaded. You can persuade them, and in this case, for, you know, 10 years, they've been saying something about Trump and about the elections that has just been lies."

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.