thank you for being with us. ♪ ♪ >> laura: good evening, everyone. i'm laura ingraham and this is "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 thesi hour.wh you don't want to miss a minute. plus raymond arroyo will be here to tell you about a sick cartoon that was published by "the new york times." it is unbelievable. back stateside, antipolice protests in chicago got violent over the weekend after a police shooting. mark fuhrman breaks down the surprising revelation in the officer's body cam footage. and judge jeanine will tell us w

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 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 thett 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 jingping of china and kim jong un of north korea. and the president, of course, was gracious and chummy with vladimir putin today.a. 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 discussed 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 russianas 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 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 presser, though, you would have thought that trump actually had defected to russia given the mass hysteria. >> you have been watching one of 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..s intelligence community, the law enforcement community, attacked american democracy in 2016.ta they came across as playmates oy our soccer field. >> you should call this the surrender summit. >> laura: surrender? now did i miss something today? did donald trump withdraw u.s. sanctions on russia? or did he invite back those 60 diplomats and others he expelled in march from russia? did he cancel future sales of lethal weapons to ukraine? of course he didn't.

but he might as well have, 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 call it surrender, by the way, when in 2009, president obama nixed 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 dmitry medvedev for a little favor until the 2012 election was over? >> after my election, i have more flexibility. >> laura: they are holding hands there. practically spooning. who was that?

a profound patriotism? and i don't recall the mediaor kicking up any fuss when obama joined cuban dictator raul castro for a baseball game or normalized relationships with that 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 it 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. but it also affected the outcome ofte the 2016 election, and no americans were named in last week's indictment. president trump probably should have said at that way, said that, addressed it that way. instead, he kind of committed an unforced error. look, 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, the basically protected hillary clinton while attempting to damn and undermine the legitimacy of trump's election. and this gnaws at the president. and it perhaps explains why he let 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 while we are standing on the world stage.ce i'm doing a lot of "while, at the same time" -- it's a complicated thing. i think while insulting putin on camera, like, doing that, donald trump versus vladimir putin it in a total insult fest that would not have accomplisheh 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 russianan meddlig in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy and weo will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security." now setting aside the overly dramatic reactions of even the president's at 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. key. at a nato summit, he called out the german-russian gas pipeline, nord stream 2. 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 closedtt 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,r, if he was really a russian mole, he would be doing things like the following. limiting fracking 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 none of that. 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 ale pretending to care about russiaw 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. >> in many of the areas where we are working to solve problems, russia has been an ally. >> governor romney's answer was incredibly revealing. he acts like he thinks the cold war is still on. russia is still our major adversary. i don't know where he has been. >> mitt romney talks like he's only seen russia by watching "rocky 4." >> laura: which is it? should we be getting closer to russia and putin?

or should we have a dynamic of constant confrontation of hostility? the liberals change their views 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 i forward. so despite some of these verbal missteps, the president hase already put us, 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 uehlinger, former cia o officer based in russia, stephen yates, former deputy assistantse of vice president dick cheney for national security affairs, and here in the studio, matt schlapp, chairman of the american conservative union. matt, your reaction? >> i think what you said really captures it, the most important part of this is the policy. should we be getting alonge with putin and russia? absolutely. the idea that you have 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, t 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 l russia, as a cia officer, watching vladimir putin, you see he never really left the kgb behind. he is crafty.e he's very canny, savvy, the way he answers questions, turns them around on the journalists, and so q forth. but what was your big take away from today? the media focusing on trump seeming to draw moral equivalence between the u.s. intel 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]mp >> our policies directed against

russia are considerably stronger than they were a decade ago and it's starting to tell. another key point that perhaps you missed was that our present energy policy, our energy policy of exporting -- increasing our export of natural gas to 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.al >> laura: if donald trump were up there and just started lobbing insults at putin, 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 nationalists at home. i lived in the soviet union in the old days in 1983 for a semester in college, and that was when andropov was president.

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, neither did bush. we rolled out the red carpet and china took 60 million of our personnel files during the obams administration. i never even heard him talk about it.il >> 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 reagan in front of the world 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 derailing trump than it is in supporting any possibld

improvement. >> laura: let's get stephen in on this. when ronald reagan called the soviet union an evil empire, the left went crazy.y. they called him ronnie ray gun, we'll talk about it shortly. they went 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 now 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'tfo t dealings with the soviet union. a break with the 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 to apparently undo the presidential election? your reaction? >> where's the obama former cia director calling when treason when you need it, because that is what that would be. i think we have really, really run the limits are on absolute trump-derangement-syndrome across the board on how people react to this kind of thing.al 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 in instantaneous sound bites. he's also the dealmaker. he wants something now. he is jumping in there and i think the dealmaker in him used some traits there in the presser 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 toha what we saw in helsinki. let's watch. >> president trump basically says he believes vladimir putin over the intelligence community. should the director of national intelligence, dan coats, resign in protest? >> i think the right thing for dan coats to do would be to send a clear message and to say he no longer will serve this position. >> how does gina haspel stay on the job? how does dan coats stay on the job? he's rebuked their professional assessment of russian meddling in the election. >> laura: everyone has to resign because president trumpia 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 if trump held vladimir putin's hand today? "vladimir, thank you very much." >> other presidents try to start the relationship on the right foot, they are called warriors for peace.s 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.pe but the policy is right. the president needs to understand, he's winning on this. stick to the course. >> laura: he's winning on it and i think this is -- there are two things you can hold on your mind at 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. >> laura: he saw his soul. i think you could have those two thoughts, better 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 behindnd 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.ot t >> europe's economy dwarfs that of russia at that point and that is what made it even more laughable when we were having the discussion about nato and whether european countries should pay their fair share. i think if nixon can go to china during the great proletariat 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, it is not just whether russia uses it, it is whether russia sells it and proliferates it. that is the stakes. >> laura: fascinating panel. l thank you, all. 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 the 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.

yothis july 16th - 22nd, enjoy a likefree week of epix on us. just say epix into your voice remote. that's a full week of all-you-can-stream critically acclaimed shows and hit movies on your tv. online. or on the go with the xfinity stream app. we're on to something, come on. it's all on us, and it's all coming soon. so you should probably start canceling your plans. you've got some serious streaming to do. ♪ ♪ >> 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.y. here's president trump talking sean hannity about the impediments to change.

>> 90% of the nuclear power in the world between these two nations and we've had had a phony witch hunt deal drive us apart.'v >> this is the biggest wedge. >> it is thear thing that he tod 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 influencee the 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 cohen, 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 tryingli o 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 russia from china. good luck with that.ch 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. >> china is a t 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 -- >> laura: he wants to triangulate china-russia? >> but he's not explaining that. he's getting attacked. i think the main problem i hadia watching the summit, watchingng 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 against china would be a smarter strategy. china, frankly, is going to overwhelm russia economically, demographically, 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 in europe, a good relationship with american allies in japan. trump is not working on any of those things -- >> laura: our relationship with japan is very strong. our relationship with the natotr allies from angela merkel, to emmanuel macron, theresa may, it all seems to be very positive. coming out of that summit, even the nato secretary general , it was a very good so meant for us. they are all lying? >> they are diplomatic, they don't want to break nato. they are trying to do their l 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 a about some of the major foreign policy blunders by presidents when a lot more was at stake even than this. he is a year and a half into this.r >> the thing i would have liked, laura, today, most importantly, would be for him to listen to his advisors. for that two hour 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 bilat stuff theyau 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 dwarf us, 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 asul president. listen to what he said. >> it's not like putin is going around the world publicly saying, look what we did.li 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 periods of time, longer periods of time, obama was right there. you don't get anything from the russians by shaming them. i think that gives putin a huge victory at home. ariel might disagree. monica, it was kind of interesting, the media seems to forget this.ct >> 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 their 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 is they have these cyber capabilities that take it to a whole other level.o >> 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, and 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 iranian reigning people rose up against the iranian regime, we pounded president obama for 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 why, ariel,>> we pounded obama when he said to medvedev, he held his hand, we pounded the that, 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 the shining city over the hill, and he also improved the relationship with the soviet union when the soviet union was ready for that. i think that model should guide 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'tle 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 stagecraft that he should not have done, the fact that the content of the u.s.-russian relations are exactly the same as they were yesterday and that is an appropriate thing. >> laura: substance versusri verbal missteps. interesting. we'll see how it goes going forward. by the way, one of the biggest things missing from today's b 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 in some historical context. best-selling author and ronald reagan historian craig joins me with more. craig, as you watch this unfold today, does it remind you of any mistakes by rookie presidents in the past? >> sure. thank you, laura. reminded me in some ways of kennedy at vienna with khrushchev in 1961. they got into a free for all debate 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 historians thought emboldened khrushchev to keep going with the berlin crisis and build the wall and thereafter to put missiles into cuba. fortunately, kennedy found his

deal and forced the missiles out. but it was a disastrous summit by all 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 won't ask anything in return. we ceded millions of people to the eastern bloc. innocent people 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 grain sales to the soviets, he gave loan guarantees to the soviets, didn't really ask anything in return. that was the point, is that reagan understood what these other 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, in his speech for barry goldwater, the soviet union -- he knew this from his days in hollywood fighting off soviet provocateurs with the hollywood trade unions -- the soviets will never stop until somebody stands up to them. that is what reagan understood, fdr only in the last couple weeks of his life when he admitted to a reporter before he passed away that it was a mistake to trust joseph stalin. carter found out to his dismay 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 the soviets or russians, it doesn't matter. they respect strength, they abhor weakness, and you have to deal with them from a position of strength.y >> laura: how would you have advised him to handle this today differently? >> well, i would have pointed out the areas ofof agreement,

pointed out the need to keep talking, pointed out the fundamental differences between the united states and russia, that there are things that could not be overcome whatsoever. just a fact of life. i would have -- he should have dealt with from a position of strength and not undermined his own intelligence agencies. he can clean this up. kennedy cleaned it up, fdr did not obviously, he passed away. canhe can make amends, he make repairs. the point, i think, laura, is the mistakes that trump made today aren't earthshaking. >> laura: they are not substantive. that was the point in my "the angle." they are not substantive.nt 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 caves on key issues. we have a pretty realistic, tough approach to russia, and he thinks we should try to figure out ways to work together, whicr 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 soam 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,g idiotic video about the trump-putin meeting that some are calling gross 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 read you the description. "the not so secret admiration for vladimir putin plays out in

a teenager's bedroom where the fantasies of this forbidden romance come to life." watch this. >> do you have a relationship with vladimir 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. ♪ ot >> russia is like -- i mean, they are really hot stuff. >> laura: oh, my god -- >> we can't show you much more w of it. >> laura: it's 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 sixth, rather, they posted a story, "why scarlett johansson should not play a trans man."oh she was about to play transgendered man in a movie.

now the argument was, you can't have someone who is not transgendered playing a transgendered character.re so why is it okay to have two straight men in what is i essentially a gay romantic comedy? a lot of people are pushing back including lgbt activists and i think you have a tweet there from a 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 t sound bite by arnold schwarzenegger. should we play that now? >> no, it's mike drucker's 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 in 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's 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." w >> 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 in influence, and the stupid, idiotic cartoon video, it is moronic. it's offensive, of course, but it's moronic. this is where journalism has gone, it's all one big "saturday night live" spoof video. it's 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 footage actually shows. we'll have the full story next. ♪

♪ >> laura: 261. ♪ >> 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.t it's an ongoing american tragedy, 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 harith augustus following a constant confrontation. a violent protest broke out in

chicago police and four officers were injured from demonstrators throwing rocks and bottles, some of which were filled with urine. police swiftly released body cam of the encounter which appears to show mr. augustus 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 it 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 no body 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 is such a level of distrust that it's fomented by some actions on the part of the police, 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.er this is not the case. >> laura: they are comparing this, mark, to laquan mcdonald, saying this is another police

cover up. they won't believe the video that is released. 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. did her lover peter strzok fail to tell the truth during his testimony last week? judge jeanine pirro joins us next analyze. we all want to know about the new thing.

you know, the new, new thing. with xfinity's retail stores, you can now see the latest. want to test drive the latest devices? be our guest. want to save on mobile? just ask. want to demo the latest innovations and technology? do it here. come see how we're making things simple, easy and awesome. plus, come in today and ask about xfinity mobile. a new kind of wireless network designed to save you money. visit your local xfinity store today.

♪ >> 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: oh, god. i can't stand him. there was peter strzok last week telling members of congress his own 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, maybe painting a different picture. listen to congressman matt gaetz. >> i found lisa page to be far more credible than peter strzok. i didn't agree with her characterization of every text message and every piecee of evidence but we did not see the smug attitude from lisa page that we saw from peter strzok. >> laura: joining me now with 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."an i love the alliteration. judge jeanine, congrats on the books.s. you book dovetails perfectly into what we have seen with strzok and page. you heard matt gaetz and mark meadows effusive in their praise of her. saying, 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, andes liberals" talks about lisa page, people at the higher echelon of the fbi. you know what amazing to me, o this guy, peter strzok, goes before congress and in an unapologetic, defiant, 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 biasd

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.w but i think it would be fascinating to see the two of them together testifying and find out whatt her interpretatn was and his, although come with this is plainho english. we can both read it and figure out what they were saying, they don't like donald trump. they didn't want himay elected d 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

meadows tweeted today after this behind closed doors testimony. he said, "remarkably, we learned new information today suggesting the doj had not notified lisa page of congress' outstanding interview request for over seven months now. the doj/fbi appear 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 they 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? >> but laura, this is part of what the left does! like hillary saying, "i was never subpoenaed 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 doeses t surprise me at all. you got to clean house and that's the end of it, laura. i worry it's not going to happen. >> laura: it's been far too long. judge, since i have you on, i want to get your reaction on something else. a federal judge temporarily halting the deportation of family units who 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.y l what i love about this, laura, the aclu is looking for a one week delay so that parents who have been reunited with their kids can't decide whether or not they want to seek asylum.

wait aat minute. what do they want to say? do they want to just admit they came here illegally and were not seeking asylum in the first place? everyone on the left has been telling us, they are here for asylum, you and i both know they could have gone to port of entry. now the judge is 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 -- they are all good. judge jeanine.

..

>> shannon: this has been a fun day. another slow monday interim plants >> this has been a fun day, just another slow monday. i want you to tell us your thoughts about how the trump

vladimir putin summit went. i want to read your tweets, even the nasty ones, let it vent. that is all the time we have tonight. shannon bream and the fox news at night team, next an encore presentation of the exclusive sitdown with vladimir putin. >> always so quiet around here. thank you so much. we begin with the fox news alert, donald trump pushing back on critics from across the political spectrum and the world in a fiery post summit interview with sean hannity he is doubling down claiming the special counsel is the biggest wedge driving the us and russia apart. john barrasso is fourth ranking member of the senate republican leadership who joins us live shortly and the exclusive history making interview with vladimir putin, we will air this in its entirety. exclusive interview with two pres.s at the center of a global firestorm of