she's taking over. laura ingraham. we'll see you tomorrow. thank you for being with us. ♪ ♪ >> laura 0 : good evening, everyone. i'm laura ingraham and mrs. "the ingraham angle" on what was a historic day, you've been hearing a lot about the trump-putin meeting, not a summit, you will get analysis here that you won't get anywhere else so stick with us through the hour. you don't want to miss a minute. plus raymond arroyo will be here to tell you about a six cartoon that was published by "the new york times." it is unbelievable. back stateside, antipolice protests in chicago by violent over the weekend after a police shooting. mark fuhrman breaks down the surprising revelations in the officer's cam footage.

and judge jeanine will tell us how things are only going to get worse for those anti-trump texting fbi lovebirds, peter strzok and lisa page. but first, trump and putin go to go to helsinki. that is the focus of tonight "angle" ." for three hours today, president donald trump and russian president vladimir putin met at a summit in helsinki. and though the meeting is now in the history books the fallout and the political attacks have just begun. now so much of the commentary today was devoid of even the slightest hint of context or history, so we thought we would try to rectify that tonight. following a strategy that he used effectively with xi of china and kim jong un of north korea. and the president, of course, was gracious and charming with vladimir putin today. president trump prefers to turn on the charm in person while using a hammer and sickle behind

the scenes. but the president made his objectives clear: he was there to begin a true reset of our relationship with russia. >> cooperation between our two countries has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives. we have 90% of nuclear power between the two countries. as president, i cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics. or the media. or democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct. i would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. >> laura: i think that was my favorite line today. well written. the two leaders did hit on a range of key issues. >> we also discussed one of the most critical challenges facing humanity: nuclear proliferation. we discuss the scourge of

radical islamic terrorism. i addressed directly with president putin the issue of russian interference in our elections. spent a great deal of time talking about it. >> laura: and indeed, it was on that subject, the russian interference in our elections, where the president gave kind of a verbal gift to his critics. >> my people came to me, dan coats came to me, and some others, they said, they think it's russia. i have president putin, he just said it's not russia. i will say this, i don't see any reason why it would be. i have great con dull my confidence in my intelligence people but i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. >> laura: don't use the words strong and powerful. immediately following the oppressor, though, you would have thought that trump actually had defected to russia given the mass hysteria. >> you have been watching the

most disgraceful performances by an american president. >> he is with someone like putin who is a thug, a world-class thug. he sides with him again and again against his own country's interest. >> you have the president, the leader of the free world, taking the word of vladimir putin, who, from all accounts, inside the u.s. government, the u.s. intelligence community, the law enforcement community, attacked american democracy in 2016. they came across as playmates on our soccer field. >> you should call this the surrender summit. >> laura: surrender? now did i miss something today? the donald trump withdraw u.s. sanctions on russia? or did he invite back those 60 diplomats and others he expelled in march from russia? that he cancel future sales of lethal weapons to ukraine? of course he didn't. but he might as well left, given the media and liberal hyperbole on what happened today.

today, obama's cia director john brennan tweeted in part, "donald trump's press conference performance in helsinki rises and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. it was nothing short of treasonous." [laughs] i just have to laugh about that. and why did no one collect surrender, by the way, when in d the european missile defense shield that was to be built in poland? was that a surrender to putin? or was it a surrender or collusion when obama asked russian prime minister dimitri may get out for a little favor until the 2012 election was over? >> after my election, i have more flexibility. >> laura: they are holding hands there. who was that? a profound patriotism? and i don't recall the media kicking up any fuss when obama joined cuban dictator raul

castro for a baseball game or normalized relationships with at murderous regime, by the way, a puppet of russia. now you can also say this: trump clearly should not have created any semblance of moral equivalency between our intel community, even if it has its flaws, which he does, and the assurances of vladimir putin. as the recent indictment of russian agents alleged, there was meddling in the election bipartisan members of congressional panels concluded that, as did the national intelligence. no americans were named in last week's indictment. president trump probably should have said at that way, said that, drafted it that way. instead, he kind of committed an unforced error. look at what the president is right. at the same time, to be frustrated by the anvil that the deep state has hung around his

neck for two years now. first, the elements within the fbi, lisa page and peter strzok. and now, mueller and his ever expanding team. and we know inside the doj, they basically protected hillary clinton while protecting to damn and undermine the legitimacy of trump's election. and this gnaws at the president. and it perhaps explains why he lets those wounds get the better of him today. but it is a good thing to improve our relationship with russia. at the same time, we cannot appear to buy their obvious deception why we are standing on the world stage. i'm doing a lot of "while, at the same time" -- it's a complicated thing. i think while insulting putin on camera, light, doing that, donald trump versus a putin it in a total insult fast, that would not have a accomplished anything. at the same time, there are other subtler ways to make our

concerns and our objections known. and the president should have taken that path. u.s. national intelligence director dan coats issued a statement in the wake of the summit today. he said the following. "we've been clear in our assessments of russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, present dull my pervasive efforts to undermine r democracy and we will continue o provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security." now setting aside the overly dramatic reactions of even the president's times unfortunate word choice, let's look for a moment at what trump is subsequently doing vis-a-vis russia. he's building up the u.s. military. he prayed at a nato summit, he called out the german russian gas pipeline. that scheme. in march of this year, he imposed sanctions on five russian entities and 19

individuals for interfering in the 2016 election. the media don't like to remind you of that, of course, that doesn't fit their narrative. and of course, he closed the russian consulate in seattle. and, as i alluded to earlier, he expelled russian diplomats and suspected spies, 60 of them. so if trump is putin's poodle, he has a really odd way of showing it. as walter russell mead wrote in "american interest" last year, if he was really a russian mole, he would be doing things like the following. limiting tracking as much as possible. blocking oil and gas pipelines. cutting u.s. military spending. and trying to tamp down pensions with russia's ally, iran. trump is doing them about. so the selective indignation on the left is truly hilarious. they keep changing their story for decades they favored a

conciliatory stance, first toward the soviet union, and then toward the russian federation, and now they are all pretending to care about russia, and casting trump as a putin surrogate. but it's good to remember just a few years ago, how certain liberals reacted when then presidential candidate mitt romney suggested that russia was a foe. >> the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the cold war has been over for 20 years. >> and many of the areas where we are working to solve problem, russia has been an ally. >> governor romney's answer was incredibly revealing. he acts like he thinks the cold war is still on. russia still are a major adversary. i don't know where he has been. >> mitt romney talks like he's only seen russia by watching "rocky 4." >> laura: of which is that? should we be getting closer to russia and putin? or should we have biodynamic of

constant confrontation of hostility? the liberals change their view is clearly depending on which party has the white house. i think in the end what really matters is how trump handles the russian relationship going forward. so despite some of these verbal missteps, the president has already put up, i think in a better position, by engaging russia, and opening dialogue. it's just the start. and that's "the angle" ." joining me in our reaction is scott you linger, former cia officer based in russia, stephen yates, former deputy assistant of vice president dick cheney fl security affairs, and here in the studio, matt schlapp, chairman of the american conservative union. matt, your reaction? >> i think what he said really captures it, the most important part of this is the policy. should we be getting along with putin and russia? absolutely. the idea that you've liberals almost calling for open warfare is absurd.

by the same token, it's fair to criticize the president today. he had some errant answers, he gave some answers that are actually uncoupled from his own tough policy. i think when you go back to what is important, looking at policy, i think he's got it dead on right. >> laura: scott, your time in russia at the cia officer, watcg lettering putin, you see he never really left the kgb behind. he is crafty. he's very canny, sappy, the way he answers questions, turns them around on the journalists, and so forth. but what was your big take away from today? the media focusing on trump seeming to draw moral equivalence between the u.s. until services and putin's assurances? >> as you had said, laura, the selective outrage of the liberal media is breathtaking to behold. they criticized president trump almost as if he was sending $150 billion on a pallet to iran for example. but in fact -- >> laura: [laughs]

>> our policies directed against russia are considerably stronger than they were a decade ago and is starting to tell. a key point that perhaps you missed was that our present ener energy policy of exporting -- increasing our export of natural gas or northern europe is in fact undercutting russian natural gas and hurting them where they live. it is depriving president putin of the revenue he needs abroad. our policies are working, and in this case, being stronger than the occasional gaffe of the u.s. president. >> laura: if donald trump were up there and just started lobbing insults at pollutant, i think that gives putin a real p.r. victory at home. he can go home and say, look, we've gotten so much under their skin, i stood up there to the president -- but you use that for you nationalist at home. i lived in the soviet union and the old days in 1983 for a semester in college, and that w.

the real dark days of the quickie presidential terms back then. the idea that he will lobbing insults at him, that is ridiculous. it's unrealistic. we don't do that with president xi. obama didn't. and as far as i can tell dominic tell, neither did bush. we rolled out the red carpet in china took 60 million of our personnel files during the obama administration. i never even heard him talk about it. >> that's right. another thing to remember is that we have an unprecedented, incredibly biased press. now i can't imagine right now if at the reykjavik summit with president reagan and gorbachev with having a western media that would be asking regular front of the road cameras to denounce the leader of -- gorbachev as a liar. because it shows that the progressive, mainstream media is more willing to grenade throw in the name of the railing trump and it is and supporting any

possible improvement. >> laura: let's get stephen in on this. when ronald reagan called the soviet union and evil empire, the left front crazy. they called him ronnie ray gun, we'll talk about it shortly. they want nuts. they said that reagan was kicking the hornets nest of the soviet union, we should get along with the soviet union. that was during the cold war. we are post-cold war, we still have challenges, and how they want to get tough on russia. i am howling at this. for those of us who were around this town in the '80s, and if we worked in the reagan administration, you couldn't get a break with a left on his dealings with the soviet union. but now they want to set up a shadow government. i want to play something for you to react to. this is a former cia man under obama. let's watch. >> fbi director continues the investigation, department of justice continues to support the investigation, congress continues saying this investigation is legitimate. curious point in american government, when do we see almost a shadow government come out and say, we cannot side with

the government, when there is a cabinet or the senate? that's the big question. >> laura: shadow government needs to form two apparently under the presidential election? your reaction? >> where's the obama former cia director calling trees when you needed, because that is what that would be. i think we have really, really round the limits are an absolute derangement syndrome across the board on how people react to this kind of thing. i think the president was trying to do two hard things at one time today. it might have been what tripped up some of the communication. i agree completely on the strategy side of it, that you got in "the angle." he's restoring realism, trying to get great power relations back on track, balancing one power against another, to try to solve real problems. the proof of this is in results, not an instantaneous sound bite bites. he's also the dealmaker. he wants something now. he is jumping in there and i think the dealmaker and him used some traits there in in the prs

are that complicated what i think he's actually doing very well in the longer-term strategy. >> laura: matt, this is what the media were saying today about what the intel chief should be doing here in the united states in reaction to what we saw in helsinki. let's watch. >> president trump basically says he believes lettering putin over the intelligence community. should the director of national intelligence, dan coats, resigned in protest? >> i think the right thing for dan coats to do would be to send a clear message and do say he no longer serve this position. >> how does gina haspel stay on the job? how does dan coats stay on the job? he's rude to mike rebuked their professional assessment of russian meddling in the election. >> laura: everyone has to resign because president trump had the press conference. >> president trump is trying to do with the previous administration did. remember the reset button. remember the clip -- >> laura: he went like this. he held his hand. it was like this.

can you imagine of trump held lettering putin's hand today? "thank you very much." >> other presidents try to start the relationship on the right foot, they are called warriors for peace. donald trump tries to do that and he is called deranged and people should -- look, i agree with you. he had some answers that were off the mark. with the policy is right. the president needs to understand, he's winning on this. stick to the goris. >> laura: he's winning on it and i think this is -- there are two things you can hold on your mind of the same time. number one, having a better relationship with russia, i heard bill richardson say that on tv today, we had obama say it, hillary say it, bush said it. he drove around in a pickup truck with vladimir putin. >> he looked into his heart heart rates. when he saw his soul. i think you could have those two thoughts, but her relationship with russia, and also have a clear-eyed view of what russia's complex history, they are very proud people, they love the motherland still, the glory days, they don't want them to be

behind them, but their economy has shrunk, their population is shrinking. they are in many ways on the decline. and they are not the threat that china is to us. their economy, half the size of california? it's ridiculous. >> europe's economy dwarfs that of russia at that point if that is what made it even more laughable when we were having a discussion about nato and whether european countries should pay their fair share. i think if nixon can go to china during the great proletarian cultural revolution, literally dozens and dozens of millions of chinese people were killed by their own government -- >> laura: 60 million. >> and we can talk about geopolitics and real things that need to change in the world because even more lives are at stake if we don't, that is what is going on. when you're talking about the nuclear stockpile, does not just whether roger uses it, it is whether russia sells it and proliferates it. that is the stakes. >> laura: fascinating panel. thank you, offer a great perspective. by the way, president trump and putin are each speaking separately with fox news tonight.

can the u.s.-russia relationship be repaired given their partisan politics here at home? answers next. sorry, i can't make it. it's just my eczema again, but it's fine. yeah, it's fine. you okay? eczema. it's fine. hey! hi! aren't you hot? eczema again? it's fine. i saw something the other day. myeczemaexposed.com. your eczema could be something called atopic dermatitis, which can be caused by inflammation under your skin.

maybe you should ask your doctor? go to myeczemaexposed.com to learn more.

♪ >> laura: oh, boy. the drama from today's trump-putin summit did not stop with the press conference.

they both sat down with fox news today. here's president trump talking sean hannity about the impediments to change. >> 90% of the nuclear power between these two nations and we've had had a phony witch hunt deal drive us apart. >> this is the biggest wedge. >> it is the thing that he told me when he went in. he said, what a shame. he felt it was very hard for me to make a deal because of, you know, all of this nonsense. >> laura: meanwhile, vladimir putin was pressed by chris wallace about russian meddling in the 2016 election. >> you really believe that someone acting from the russian territory could have influenced the united states and influenced her choice of millions of americans?

>> laura: joining us now with reaction, ian bremmer, the president, founder of the eurasian group. monica crowley from the london center for policy research at along with ariel colon, senior fellow at the atlantic council. you heard the angle, my view, some verbal missteps, but that subsequent policy coming out of this administration toward russia, in my mind, is quite realistic and pragmatic given the difficulties with russia, the challenges, the deception, and also, hope for a better future. >> definitely we should all hope for the better future. however, to expect that russia is somehow going to change, that they are going to address terrible crisis in ukraine, occupation, annexation of crimea, it's not realistic. probably mr. trump is trying to do several things. one, he is addressing the nuclear issue, we all need some kind of arms control. second, i think he is trying to detach rocha from china. good luck with that. but i think if you didn't try, you won't -- >> laura: that's a pretty big

deal? >> it's a huge deal. >> laura: china is the real threat. >> tried as a competitor. china is a huge competitor, economically, geopolitically -- >> laura: what is the size of china versus russia? >> china is -- >> laura: eight times, ten times? >> about eight times bigger. it's getting closer to our economy. that is a problem. it a number of technologies, they are -- he wants to triangulate china-russia? >> but he's not explaining that. he's getting attacked. i think the main problem i had watching the summit, watching the dynamics is the policy comes with the presentation. if i am mr. trump, who now is in the unique position of fighting the intelligence community and fighting most of the media. >> i do believe that trying to get the russians long-term onside with united states again tried he would be a smarter strategy.

china, frankly, is going to overwhelm russia economically, demographically convoked but the ability of the americans to do that, at this point, is really zero. furthermore, if you want to try to triangulate china, you would want the trans-pacific partnership. you would want a good relationship with america's allies at europe, a good relationship with american allies in japan. trump is not working in any of those things -- >> laura: our relationship with japan is very strong. our relationship with the nato allies from angela merkel, two emmanuel macron, theresa may, it all seems to be very positive. they are all lying? >> they are diplomatic, they don't want to break nato. they are trying to do their best -- >> laura: got to pay their fair share. >> i'm just saying if trump is trying to build an alliance, which i think we all believe is the most important strategic thing to do, he has not gone about that effectively.

foreign policy -- >> laura: it's complex. it's new to him. in a few moments we'll hear about some of the major foreign policy blunders by presidents when a lot more was at stake even dennis. he is a year and a half into this. >> the thing i would have liked, laura, today, most importantly, would be for him to listen to his advisors. for that to our meeting at the beginning. because he's new to it, not to try to do by himself. actually have the people around him that are trying to -- >> laura: the bilateral stuff they did simultaneously before that, very, very positive. monica, some of these points are well taken, i think our panel here believes that china is the real threat to the united states long-term militarily, the largest standing army, the economy will world war first, stealing our technology, south china sea, moving into africa, and beyond. nevertheless, obama back in 2016, i think it was october of 2016, or december, he was talking about the fact that he

didn't confront vladimir putin on this russian meddling when he could have confronted it as president. listen to what he said. >> it's not like putin is going around the world publicly saying, look what we did. wasn't that clever. he denies it. so the idea that somehow public shaming is going to be effective, i think doesn't read. the thought process in russia very well. >> laura: monica, a few of us on the panel lived in the soviet union for short. max of time, longer. s of time, obama was right there. you don't get any thing from the russians by shaming them. i think that gives boudin a huge victory at home. ariel might disagree. monica, it was kind of interesting, the media seems to forget this. >> that's exactly right.

look, the obama administration was made aware, including all the way up to the president himself, certainly during the spring months and later of 2016, that the russians were engaged in these active measures to disrupt the american electoral process. what we also forget is that the russians targeted the republican national committee's servers, and they are sort of computerized systems. they weren't able to penetrate those but they were able to penetrate the dnc's. the idea that somehow all of this is new, we know that the russians have been actively engaged in trying to disrupt american elections, western elections, really since the advent of the cold war. what's different now as they have these cyber capabilities that take it to a whole other level. >> laura: this is serious. it's serious stuff. >> while i support the president's attempt to really try to reset the russian relationship, unlike mrs. clinton and president obama, their failed attempts, i support the overall effort. but the core strength of the american president's power is

his moral authority. what i would have liked to have seen their stronger public statement on behalf of the president to condemn this. we remember in 2009, laura, when the reigning people rose up against the iranian regime, we r not at least speaking a word of moral support for them. i would have liked to have seen a president give some moral statement against what the russians have done, not just to ask him over to our allies. >> laura: that his bike, ariel, we pounded obama when he said to medvedev, he held his hand, we pounded the outcome of the democrats, the media ignored him. what does flexibility mean? we never got an answer. >> laura, if you remember president reagan, he took the high moral ground. he talked about their shining city over the hill, and he also improve the relationship with the soviet union when the soviet union was ready for that. i think that model should guard

mr. trump as well. >> let's just be clear that there are a bunch of things that people were concerned that trump was going to do and he didn't do. he didn't actually say that ukraine is done, he didn't actually say that crimea is russian, he didn't actually say the americans will stop military exercises in the baltic, he didn't say the americans will pull troops out of syria. for all of the moral equivalency and the states craft that he should not of done, the fact that the content of the u.s.-russian relations are your exactly the same as they were yesterday and that is an appropriate thing. >> laura: substance versus verbal missteps. interesting. we'll see how it goes going forward. by the way, one of the biggest things missing from today's summit, historical context. we got an esteemed presidential historian to go through all that noise. we'll take a look at "the new york times" ugly cultural narrative being created about the summit with raymond arroyo next.

♪ >> laura: while the left and the media are going into

absolute hysterics over today's meeting between trump and putin, let's put this summit and some historical context. best-selling author and ronald reagan historian craig joins me with more. craig, as you watch this unfold today, that it remind you of any mistakes by rookie presidents in the past? >> sure. thank you, laura prater reminded me in some ways of kennedy at vienna with khrushchev in 1971. they got into a a for all debae over the merits of the western system versus the east. kennedy couldn't mount an effective defense of the free market or democracy and khrushchev came away from the summit very, very unimpressed with kennedy's performance, which a lot of people thought -- a lot of a story and thought, khrushchev to keep going with the berlin crisis and build the wall and thereafter to put missiles and to cuba. fortunately, kennedy found his deal and forced the missiles ou

out. but it was a disastrous summit mail accounts. obviously, yalta also for fdr was also a disaster. he went in there thinking joe stalin was a good guy, i will give him what he wants, and i want to ask anything in return. we seated millions of people to the eastern bloc. innocent people in in the now warsaw pact countries, who ended up living enslaved under the soviet union for many years. >> laura: what about nixon? one of his summits was kind of a disaster. >> nixon gave too much away. nixon and kissinger were interested in a good photo op, interested in the trophy on the wall. nixon gave green sales to the soviets, he gave loan guaranteet really ask anything in return. that was the point, is that reagan understood what they said that presidents didn't understand. the soviets will take and take and take until you draw a line in the sand. back in 1964, reagan understood

this, and his speech for barry goldwater, the soviet union -- s from his days in hollywood fighting off soviets provocateurs with the hollywood trade unions -- the soviets will never stop until somebody stands up to them. that is what reagan understood, fdr only the last couple weeks of his life when he admitted to a reporter before he passed away that i was a mistake to trust joseph stalin. carter found out he was dismayed with a mistake to trust -- because within weeks of the assault the soviets invaded afghanistan. that's what trump needs to understand. the culture, whether it's a soviets or russians, it doesn't matter. they respect strength, the poor weakness, and have to deal with them for my position of strength. >> laura: how would you have advised him to handle those today differently? >> well, i would have pointed out the areas of agreement,

pointed out the need to keep talking, pointed at the fundamental differences between the united states and russia, that there are things that could not be overcome whatsoeve whatsoever. just a fact of life. i would have -- he should have dealt with my position of strength and not undermined his. he can clean this up. kennedy cleaned it up, fdr did none obviously, he passed away. but he can make amends, he can make repairs. the point, i think, laura, is the mistake that trump may today aren't earthshaking. >> laura: they are not substantive. that was the point in my "the angle." they are not substantive. they are verbal. it's an approach in tone, which, you know, it is what it is now but he didn't agree to substantive cave is on key issues. we have a pretty realistic, to have approach to russia, and he thinks we should try to figure out ways to work together, which is what obama said, bush said, clinton wanted, they all wanted

this. none of it came too much fruition. craig, the historical part of this is so important, and i have so much appreciate you joining us tonight. if it didn't happen in "the new york times" today, most people think it never happened. we really appreciate your insight. thank you so much. by the way, another story, "the new york times," about how vicious things are getting, recently published his bizarre, idiotic video about the trump-putin meeting that some are calling grows and even homophobic. "new york times" best selling author and fox news contributor raymond arroyo is here with reaction. raymond, what is this all about? >> this is part of a series that "the new york times" opinion page has mounted. they have three installments. it's called "trump bites." this particular video -- again, this is all about narrative, okay, this is what the pop culture and people who aren't focused on policy take away. this one is called "trump and putin: a love story." i'll redo the description. "the not so secret admiration for vladimir putin plays out in

a teenagers bedroom where the fantasies of this forbidden romance come to life." watch this. >> do you have a relationship with lettering putin? >> i do have a relationship with him. a lot of people would say he's put himself at the forefront of the world as a leader. ♪ >> russia is like -- i mean, they are really hot stuff. >> laura: oh, my god, -- >> we can show you much more of it. >> laura: it stupid. >> the point is, this is the narrative they are trying to portray, and they are getting a lot of pushback today. i've been flipping through "the new york times" opinion pages, on july 7th -- or six, rather, they posted a story, "why scarlett johansson should not play a trans man."

she was about to play transgendered man and a movie. now the argument was, you can't have someone who is not transgendered playing a transgendered character. so why is it okay to have two straight men and what is essentially a gay romantic comedy? a lot of people are pushing back including lgbt activists and i think you have a tweet there for my rather prominent writer. >> laura: here is -- we have a tweet by -- this is funny. i have to put this together. we have a tweet by -- a sound bite by arnold schwarzenegger. should we play that now? >> no, it's mike truckers tweet. i don't have it in front of me. >> laura: here it is. it says "congrats to everyone doing gay jokes about trump and putin, throwing your own beliefs under the bus for a political cartoon they will never see."

[laughs] >> people are very upset about this and the gay community, and rightfully so. they are making light of their lifestyle. in addition to those, if you are the president, and you know this narrative is out there, and is in the pop culture, and it's in movies, i will show you another clip in a moment, "our cartoon president, stephen colbert is a show on showtime, they make the same argument why you fall into the trap and give them real ammo when your substance tells a very different story? watch this. this is from "our cartoon president." >> laura: i don't think -- we don't have that actually. the point is well taken. hold on. "the new york times" is declining in readership, declining and influence, and the twitter deal debated of the stupid, idiotic cartoon video, it is. it's offensive come of course, but it's. this is where journalism has

gone, it's all big one saturday night late to -- "saturday night live" spoof video. as embarrassing. >> i think people want an escape. they don't want to see this stuff. if you look at the top rated movies of the weekend, it was "hotel transylvania" and "antman." a lot of heroes that are smaller than ever. >> laura: a big-time protest in chicago over a police shooting but you won't believe what the police body cam showed footage actually shows. we'll have the full story next.

♪ >> laura: 261. that is how many people have been murdered in chicago this year and most of it happening in minority communities on the city's west and south sides. it's an ongoing american strategy, yet, you don't see many protests demanding change. unless of course a police officer is involved. on saturday, officers shot and killed 37-year-old horrific dust is following a constant confrontation.

a violent protest broke out in chicago police a four officers were injured from demonstrators throwing rocks and bottles, some of which were filled with urine. they swiftly release body cam footage of the encounter, which shows mr. custis with a holster around his waist. joining me now is former l.a.p.d. detective mark fuhrman. based on what you have seen in this body cam footage, i watched a couple of times, do you think the protesters have a legitimate beef? >> laura, once again we have a false narrative. just like in the michael brown shooting, you have a false narrative of his hands were up, he was running away, not running toward the officer, but there was nobody camera. now superintendent johnson in chicago immediately released something that is really out of protocol and really actually harms an investigation but he

did it do try to save exactly what is happening. this body cam is the view of an officer in a tactical situation that is crystal clear, something that you will rarely ever see again, crystal-clear, and everything there is the evidence that points to a justified police shooting. i am in shock that the public in chicago is up in arms about this man acting as he did, armed, with four officers. >> laura: isn't it the case, mark, that there are such a level of distrust that it's fomented by some actions on the part of the police can but also, mostly by these black lives matter protests and organizers who come in and immediately start to stoke public outrage about these incidents. they call for the mayor's resignation -- i am no fan of rahm emanuel, but they are calling for his resignation

tonight, the resignation of other top city officials, saying they are violating the ongoing consent decree with the government. there is real damage done again. everyone seems to be afraid to call this what it is. it's crime and reaction to an unfortunate, awful situation. a lot of these protests turn into criminal activity over the weekend. >> absolutely. let's not forget the suspect precipitated his own death. he had many opportunities where he didn't have to have to die and he chose to do what he did and he did die. when you look at this narrative of black lives matter, you know, it is the boy who cried wolf. pretty soon no one is going to listen when there is really an incident where they actually should take up protests and actually demonstrate their power to actually get justice. this is not the case. >> laura: they are comparing this, mark, to laquan mcdonald,

saying this is another police cover up. they want believe the video that is released where they don't believe that. you see stuff online that is all fake, it's a fake video, made by the police, not really what happened. it's another laquan mcdonald situation. >> the police and city government and chicago should just ignore them then. if they are not going to be reasonable and look at body cam footage, you can't do anything more with police officers then put a camera on their chest and have you view what the officer views and actually see the action the officer takes against the suspect and the reaction of the suspect. you can't do anything more. if they are not satisfied with that, then stop placating their demands. just stop listening. >> laura: remember, hands up don't shoot, even when that was proven to be complete malarkey, they still have that in protest signs. "hands up, don't shoot" from the

michael brown case. mark fuhrman, always great to have you on. lisa page meeting with members of congress for a second a private testimony. that her lover peter strzok failed to tell the truth durings testimony last week? judge jeanine pirro joint is next analyze.

♪ >> i think it's important when

you look at those texts that you understand the context in which they were made and the things that were going on across america. in terms of the texts that we will stop it, you need to understand that that was written late at night off-the-cuff and it was in response to a series of events that included then candidate trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero. >> laura: all, god. i can't stand him. there was peter strzok last week telling members of congress as our text messages about donald trump really didn't mean anything. but his former lover, lisa page, after two days of private meetings with members of congress, may be painting a different picture. listen to congressman matt gaet gaetz. >> i found lisa page to be far more credible than peter strzok. i didn't agree with your characterization of every text message and every piece of evidence but we did not see the smug attitude from lisa page that we saw from peter strzok.

>> laura: joining me now it's reaction is fox news' judge jeanine pirro, who is also the author of the brand-new book "liars, leakers, and liberals, the case against the anti-trump conspiracy." i love the alliteration. judge judy and, congrats on the books. you broke dovetails perfectly into what we have seen with strzok and paid. you heard matt gaetz and mark matters effusive in their praise of her. to say, i wouldn't with everything but she seemed to contradict what peter strzok said on the meanings of some of these text messages. >> first of all, laura, thank you for having me on. my book, "liars, leakers, and liberals" talks about lisa page, peter strzok, all of these people at the higher echelon of the fbi. you know it's amazing to become of this guy, peter strzok, goes before congress and in an unapologetic defiance, sarcastic, smug way, says, none of you congressmen and women, you can't believe your lying eyes, just because i said it, i didn't mean what i said.

when in truth, what he said as the textbook definition of bias. so now we've got lisa page. and so some of these congresspeople are more effusive about her, finding her to be more credible. that is no surprise. there was very little of what strzok said that was credible. but what was so telling to me, laura, was they said that there was a suggestion that based upon her testimony, the fbi desired a specific outcome. we don't know yet because we don't have the transcript and honestly, i don't know why we don't then we probably should. but i think it would be fascinating to see the two of them together testifying and find out what her interpretation was and his, although come with this is plain english. we can both read it and figure out what they were saying, they don't like donald trump. they didn't want him elected and the insurance policy was to prevent him from getting elected, or in the event he got elected, making sure he would be faced with some kind of investigation, which would be the basis for impeachment.

>> laura: this is what mark matters tweeted today after this behind closed doors testimony. he he said "remarkably, we leard new information today suggesting that the doj had not notified lisa page of congress' outstanding interview request for over seven months now. the doj-fbi appeared to be continuing their efforts to keep the material facts and perhaps even witnesses from congress." judge jeanine, your reaction to that? that's a wild revelation. i don't think we should have any reason to lie about that. she would be held in contempt if she didn't show up on friday and continuing today. they didn't tell her? speak about laura come with us as part of what the left does! editors like hillary saying, "i was never so. on benghazi." sure you are subpoenaed. who are you kidding? we've got an department of justice and fbi that is covering its tracks. it is more interested in protecting its own flanks and not being exposed than exposed than it is in confronting and identifying its truth. and unfortunately, we've got an

department of justice run by a guy named rod rosenstein, who was part of the swamp. part of the establishment. and so for them not to tell lisa page she was subpoenaed does not surprise me at all. you got to clean house them at the end of it, laura. i worry it's not going to happen. >> laura: it's been far too long for a judge, since i have you on, i want to get your reacn on something else. a federal judge temporarily halting the deportation of family units. now michael were reunited after being separated by the trump administration. is this judge, by the way, a george w. bush appointee, overstepping his legal bounds? a single federal district court judge again halting federal policy in this regard. your reaction? >> make no mistake. the aclu is going to find a judge who is most receptive to whatever it is they are looking for. what i love about this, laura, the aclu is looking for a one week delay so that parents who have been reunited with her kids can't decide whether or not they

want to seek asylum. wait a minute. what do they want to say? to they want to just admit they came here illegally and were not seeking asylum in the first place? if everyone on the left has been telling us, they are here for asylum, you want i both know they could have gone to port of entry. now the judges buying into it, saying, i will let them decide if they really want asylum. no, they just want to -- they either want asylum or they should be deported. >> laura: everybody's got to go out and get judge jeanine's book. she will be on my radio show this week. we will have a much longer conversation. it will be a huge best seller. "liars, liberals, and leakers -- >> laura: judge jeanine.

>> shannon: this has been a fun day. another slow monday interim plants i want to tell you your thoughts of how you thought the trump-putin summit, i always love to read your tweets, even

the nasty ones. let it vent, let it all out. that is all the time we have tonight. shannon bream and the fantastic "fox news @ night" team are up next for the special encore presentation of chris wallace is exclusive sit down with a putin. >> shannon: it's always so quiet around here during the summer in the swamp. thank you so much. we begin with the fox news alert. president trump pushing back at his critics who hail from across the political spectrum and indeed the world in a fiery posh sean hannity he is doubling down. claiming a special counsel probe driving u.s. and russia parts. republican senator john barrasso is the fourth rigging member of the summer republican leadershie shortly. plus the exclusive history making interview with russian president vladimir putin. we will air this in its entirety this hour, inclusive interface with the two presidents at the center of a global firestorm of controversy, right here on "fox news @ night." welcome to washington. i'm shannon bream. let's get started with the latest from helsinki