promote my new book. sean is back monday. have a great weekend. jason chaffetz is up next filling in for laura. >> good evening. i'm jason chaffetz in for laura ingraham on this special edition of "the ingraham angle." the helsinki summit was four days ago, setting off an absolute media meltdown after the summit's press conference. that's right, not to the summit itself where we know few details of the conversation but to the press conference where trump said he didn't see any reason why trump would meddle in our election contradicting our intelligence. here's some of the hits. >> this is one of the most disgraceful performances of the u.s. government. >> you should call this surrender summit.

>> it's the betrayal of the nation. >> trump, of course, clarified his remarks and expressed his support of the intel community. he even said this. >> look at the sanctions i put on, the diplomats i threw out. look at all the things that i've done that nobody else did what i've done. obama didn't do it. obama was a patsy for russian. look at the statement he made. he thought the mics were turned off. look at the stupid statement he made. getting along with president putin is a positive, not a negative. now, with that being said, if that doesn't work out, i'll be the worst enemy he's ever had. >> that doesn't sound like a guy afraid of russia. what the media and the left forget to mention in this conversation is that helsinki didn't happen in a vacuum. it was a part of series of major

moves president trump made overseas. for example what would forget the president's successful summit with north korea's kim jong-un who pledged to work towards the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. that was last month. last week president trump at nato in brussels demanded our allies pay more of their share of military spending. check out this graph by bloomberg showing increases in military budgets from nato members from 2016 to 2017. which some are calling the trump bump. that happened before the nato summit. bloomberg is also out with a record that says trump and putin are in discussions over the ukraine crisis. so it's not always a bad thing to talk to your adversaries. here's what secretary of state mike pompeo said about trump and putin potentially meeting a again this fall. >> it is incredible valuable to the people of the united states of america that president putin and president trump continue to

engage in dialogue to resolve the issues. this makes enormous sense. i'm hopeful that meeting will take place this fall. >> joining me now for reaction is eric beech, co chair of "donald trump great america pact." with me in the studio in wash damage, matt schlapp and former obama state department official, david teferri. thanks for being here. i want to start with david. i see the democrats, they just flip out on everything. they overplay their hand every single time. but tell me, under president obama and secretary's clinton and kerry, what is the very best thing that president obama did and accomplished with russia? >> different times, of course. president obama tried a reset with russia. that -- >> how did that go? >> it didn't go well.

they didn't make some accomplishments. they got a stark treaty in place. they brought in forces -- >> so russia took over crimea -- >> and bring in equipment for military in afghanistan across russia air pair and put in sanctions on iran. some thing didn't happen. so russia didn't like it some eastern european countries joined nato and that's when it fell apart. >> fell apart is the operative word here. you look at these attacks on our financial systems. this all happened during president obama's watch. >> none of the attacks on the financial system are like the meddling in our election. >> when did that happen? that happened during obama's watch. >> yes, it did. >> he told america and the world, you couldn't do it even if you tried. that was a lie. it was a lie. let me bring in eric here.

how do you read this situation? is it better under trump or better under barack obama? >> i'm not going to defend the democrats, but they're not the only target here. trump's foreign policy doctrine is a direct to the neocons. they're undercutting president. the irony there, he's the best friend to israel. russia is not -- they have one military base outside of russia. we have mutual interests with russia. the president is trying to get the best deals. what are we going to do to denuclearize north korea? he's working with israel or endorsing the israel russia plan in syria. so there's a lot of mutual interests. when we hold 90% of the nuclear power combined with russia, we have to have a dialogue and we need to understand how to make sure that we can make the world a democracy and russia is a lot like us in many different ways. so i don't think it's just the democrats that we should target here. trump, when he ran, he had a

foreign policy doctrine that was libertarian like rand paul that was also attacked. so i think trump should stick to his guns, open up the dialogue and continue to do what he's doing. >> matt, there was criticism from the right as well as the left. i think you were part of that. >> i was. >> how do you see this playing out now that we're at least a few days -- >> i'd like to take a step back. it's silly to make the argument that it would be unwise for a new fresh president of the united states to not deal with the leader of russia. we've got to do that. the idea that trump is somehow soft on putin just because when they're in each other's company, he tries hard to be in some cases too hard the other day to be hospitable. the policy is what matters. the policy coming out of the trump administration as you pointed out is two or three times tougher than anything we saw in obama if you look at the export controls, the sanctions, the number of people he kicked

out. look at the bombing that the president has done. if you look at every criteria, the president's policy is tough. the democrats have a problem with his words. he realized himself that some of his words -- >> what is the strategy behind it? if the actions are tough, why are the words so soft? the words are soft on putin but not anybody else. >> that's not true. the president has chosen two leaders that don't have nicknames. notice that? the president of china and vladimir putin. he realizes that the relationship is hinged, that it matter what's you do with one and the impact on the other. what the president is going to do and where he's clearly pointing is the fact that china is from a national security standpoint and an economic stand point our biggest adversary on the globe. >> all three of you are trying to distract what happened monday. what happened in helsinki is the president departed from the vision of every other president,

democrat and republican. he supported rule of law against russia. we've had 13 presidents -- >> castro -- >> we've had -- let me finish. >> he's right about castro. >> we've had 13 presidents since world war ii and all of them stood up to russia except president trump. 13 is an unlucky number. >> carter didn't sell them grain. that was tough. >> going back to the 70s. >> it happened monday. >> eric, what is your take on this? >> the problem with the democrats is it has never been about election meddling according to some unclassified documents. they meddled 81 times. the reality is, it's about collusion between trump and russia and they have yet to prove that. so now they worry about meddling? the last 13 presidents. i haven't heard anything about

election meddling in any of those presidents. the last time we heard from obama he said it couldn't happen. the narrative is being lost. the president doesn't need to target the democrats. they have no power, no message. he needs to stick to his guns on his foreign policy doctrine. results are what matter. he's getting results and hopefully we can continue to have that dialogue. >> what happened in north korea? >> we brought home the hostages. >> i applauded that he met with the north korean leader. there's no evidence they have backed off their nuclear ambition at all. satellite images show that they're continuing to use the nuclear site. >> you're rooting for the president? >> i am. i supported -- >> it's the right thing to do. >> absolutely. >> it was the right thing -- >> to call it a success now? there wasn't any material

example of how north korea -- >> hold on. i'll agree with you. we've seen no progress on the nuclear weapons yet. it was the right thing to do to engage another nuclear power on the globe and the president was dealt a terrible policy that he inherited and making the best of a bad situation. >> eric, there's talk about a second summit now bringing vladimir putin to the white house for a meeting. is that a good idea or a bad idea for the president to do? >> i think he has to continue with the upper hand. i know that he misspoke during the meeting. the intent is what we need here. we need to work with russia. we have 90% of the nuclear power between the two countries. they're not going to get back in the game. they're not a world order coming after us. we have to work with them because we have mutual interests and the president is doing a right thing. the doctrine is message. he has to fight on his message.

>> david, good thing or bad thing for the president to meet with putin? >> look what happened monday that would be a disaster -- >> how can the democrats -- seriously, you're saying the same thing that i hear from democrats. democrats are actually arguing against diplomacy, against dialogue -- >> we're not arguing about diplomacy. we're arguing in favor of results and setting an agenda that supports america and american interests. he can invite putin here. you bring the 12 russian agents that interfered in our election -- >> you're so tough. you're so tough. >> stop supporting assad, agree to pull out of crimea, pull out of eastern ukraine -- >> why didn't obama say that? >> president trump said that and if you do that, come to the u.s. and i'll meet with you. >> did you say that to barack obama? he was the president when that

happened. >> barack obama's reaction to the invasion of crimea should have been stronger. i agree with you. president trump is thinking ant endorsing the annexation of crimea. >> how -- you don't know what he's thinking. >> it's in the media. the media is always right. >> his people have not denied that. >> you said there should be goals with putin, right? >> yes. >> so i'm -- >> there were no goals for the meeting in helsinki. that's part of the problem. >> the goals you just established was the complete reversal of everything that happened on obama. that's a high bar. you know what i'd like to see? i'd like to see things improve with russia and i'd like the president, mr. putin to president that he can't get away with these things with a president trump. >> a weak ineffective trump meeting with putin getting the best of him is not going to improve things. that's what happened monday -- >> you support him? >> you fear that donald trump is

the president and he's making progress. that's the problem. >> nobody in the foreign policy field thinks he made progress monday. >> he made progress with nato, getting tens of billions -- i have a next segue to the next topic. mike turner will talk about this. gentlemen, i appreciate this. a vibrant conversation on a beautiful friday night. thanks for coming in. i need to bring in someone that know as thing or two about america's role in the world. it's congressman mike turner, a republican from ohio, also the chairman of the u.s. delegation to the nato parliamentary assembly. i had the honor of serving with mr. turner in the congress. i thank you for being here. what i thought about what went on with nato -- i was convinced when i was a member of congress, you knew more than anybody in the house of representatives as it relates to nato. earlier i put up a graphic about the tens of billions that are is

that righting to flow to nato partners. what effect has trump had, although unconventional, in pushing our nato partners to pay their fair share? >> absolutely. he's had a huge impact. this is an important impact. this goes right to not only just our national security but the national security of the overall alliance. in 2014, the wales summit, the nato allies made a commitment to reach 2%. this is something that they agreed to. it's not being imposed upon them by the united states. at the same time, they were not reaching this goal. president after president would point this out but no real movement was being made. the president has come in, is holding them accountable, requiring that they come forward with plans to reach the goal. as you just described, untold amount of money is now flowing into their own militaries, which are contributing overall to nato's capability. he's having a huge impact on the capability and funding for nato

military's objectives. >> we're going to show you footage. this is donald trump on oprah winfrey's program 30 years ago. listen to what he said 30 years ago. >> what would you do differently, donald? >> forget about the enemies. the enemies you can't talk to. i'd make our allies pay their fair share. >> pretty interesting that he said that. i thought it was interesting watching that for the fifth time, talking to our enemies. it's not so easy. i think we demonstrated that. for him to say pushing our allies to pony up and pay their their share, that's something that donald trump has done. how has that worked in terms of conventional forces and also the space race. you've heard the president announce a new push there. astonia, a nato ally is critical in our cyber front. what is the balance there and how is that money -- how would you like to see the money spent?

>> first off, the president articulating 30 years ago and today the bill for defending nato should not be sent to the united states. the nato allies should share their burden is where the american people are. that needs to be communicated clearly to the allies. russia itself has an economy somewhere between that of italy or spain. not italy and spain. but they have a military capable of threatening all of europe. what we need to see from our european counter parts, investment in real capabilities. we have deployed our forces to help counter the aggressiveness of russia along the border. they need to look at real capabilities, ground capabilities, air capabilities so they can deter russia. this is a real issue of not just can you win in a conflict or how to we engage in deployments but how to we avoid conflict. that is investing in deterrence and having a military capable of your adversary looking and

saying, i don't want to mess with you. this cost will be too high. >> a lot of people are concerned that now that there's 600 plus billion going into the military where other countries, china, russia and others can play on an equal footing in the united states is in the cyber front. how do we attack that? where do we spend that money? what do we do when we know that russian is attacking the united states on the cyber front? >> you're correct. we do know this. we're doing it on a couple of levels. one is obviously trying to work with both industry and with government infrastructure to try to fortify our electronic systems so that they're not subject to hacking. working with our allies so they're not a back door to this. also, we need to hone our skills doing to our adversaries what our adversaries do to us.

>> i think this is one hoff the big questions for our country and for our population. if somebody were allowed to lob missiles at us, you can fire back. but when they attack us electronically, how do you fire back? thanks, congressman for being here. is the helsinki summit affecting special counsel robert mueller's probe? we'll have analysis coming up next.

>> jason: it seems the one thing that democrats are happy about with the helsinki summit, it keeps the team off of the republican probe. speaking of the mueller probe, there's more allegations of unfair treatment. there's reports that democratic lobbyists, tony podesta, worked on behalf of a ukrainian interest route registering under the foreign agent registration act. mueller indicted drop's former campaign manager paul manafort over similar accusations. so are manafort and podesta being treated the same? not according to tucker carlson's reporting last night. >> we can report exclusively based on two separate sources that we spoke to today that tony podesta has been offered

immunity by robert mueller to testify against paul manafort. for a nearly identical cream, bill and hillary's friend can escape while paul manafort can rot in jail. >> jason: that doesn't seem fair. john is here with us and bobby and democratic strategist, scott bolden. bobby, i want to ask you, you being involved in the fbi, when do you use immunity and why is it that we continue to see, if the reporting is true and i believe tucker carlson in the hillary clinton probe, they gave out five sets of immunity and got nothing for it and now we're hearing that tony podesta is getting immunity. when do you use it? >> there's a couple of reasons. the first and foremost, if the person you're dealing with has

committed a crime. if they haven't committed a crime or you don't think they committed a crime, they have nothing to be immune from. so podesta is thought of to have engaged in some kind of conduct that he needs immunity from. that's the first and foremost thing. the second thing is, you feel that he has some information that he can give you on some of the people that are targets in your investigation, which means only that he must have dealt with them in a criminal conspiracy or criminal matters that relate to mueller's investigation. there's two things. they must think that podesta did something illegal and was connected to the probe going on. that's how the conspiracies work. guys get together to commit crimes. so podesta, this deal puts podesta in the middle of it. >> jason: scott, react to this report and now they're handing

immunity to another democrat. >> this isn't a partisan issue. i'm a white collar criminal defense investigator. every case is different. here's the deal. manafort certainly has more -- is charged with more crimes, so actually more than podesta. if podesta was part of a deal or a conspiracy, then he has information that they need to prosecute manafort or others. two, they believe he's committed a crime a subject or a target and three, manafort is fighting these charges. manafort isn't rolling over and trying to cooperate and make america better and telling what's going on with trump and others. he's fighting the charges. that's why he's in jail and why podesta is getting immunity. >> jason: john, your background with the fbi. you saw what happened in the hillary clinton probe. the fbi said we got nothing for all the immunity handed out. have you ever seen that? does the fbi have any other case

where they handed out five sets of immunity and got nothing for it and now here they are handing out immunity again? >> they're getting his testimony in the prosecution of manafort. that's something that is supervaluable for my prosecutor. >> jason: john, you had a long career at the fbi. how did you see this? >> to hand out so many immunities is unusual and to get nothing for it. i think the lesson we're seeing here is, if you're going to commit a crime, it pays to have a relative who is in high political office. so you can be the one to offer immunity. let's not forget. the reality is, maybe he knows something that the other people being charged don't know. maybe he can offer more information. they're obviously going to look for getting the biggest bang for their buck. >> jason: and i have a hard time believing that they're going after mr. manafort is the biggest fish. he was with the trump campaign for three or four months. something like that. we'll see. mueller has been given a lot of latitude. they're trying to equate what happened in russia with

mr. putin and this. theres no evidence of any collusion. i want to talk about some of the -- something else, something that was in a little bit more fall-out from the helsinki summit. former intelligence chiefs are now politicizing their role in going after trump. here's what former acting -- a former acting cia director said. >> at what point will there be critical mass of objection to some of the lunacy going on under this president? to state it boldly, the president sided with the enemy. >> an ousted fbi director james comey had to throw in his two cents saying all that believe in this country's values must vote nor democrats this fall. policy differences don't matter right now. history has its eyes on us. gentlemen, is this an appropriate thing for a former intel chief to jump in here and do this? i want to start with scott.

because i think these things actually play in donald trump's hands. >> i don't think they play in the hands. but what is your issue with what they have said, your gop colleagues have said, what democrats have said and what we watched? we watched a president that did not denounce russia. 13 of his government agents were just indicted by mueller. they have had -- we have -- >> under the obama administration. yes. >> and they said they attacked our election system and our president, gop president, denies it. then he gets on a consequential -- >> jason: i think -- >> he's does nothing about it. >> jason: it's too strong to say he denies it. he said he misspoke. >> misspoke? >> jason: you know donald trump doesn't -- >> on the world stage he misspoke? >> jason: you know he doesn't like to do that. >> but saying misspoke when you're -- that summit shouldn't have taken place. with these indictments and the seven --

>> jason: what about the democrats? don't talk to anybody. john, i want to -- i have to bring in john here. you have a lot of experiences in fbi. is it the right proper place for these intel chiefs to raid and advocate for the democrats? how does that play? >> i'm just happy that comey is using his personal phone and not a government phone if he's tweeting. they shouldn't be doing this. the reality is that they understand from those positions a lot of moving parts are going on. nobody know what's the president is doing or his administration. so they actually could be undermining other facts as they're taking place. i'll tell you whether you like putin, don't like putin or don't like trump, never hurts to speak to the other side. every time you do -- >> jason: bobby, your experience in fbi director, former intel chiefs out there making he's comments, how does that strike

you? >> it's irresponsible. damages the republic. i'd be in favor of certain senior level policy officials being barred from doing this kind of political rhetoric. we have the hatch act, which has -- is enforceable against government employees. once you leave the government, there should be an enforceable mechanism that these senior policy that can't go out that had access to this information and go on these tweet storms and some of them have lost their mind in anger against the current president. you can't separate that rhetoric from things that they learned and knew with their security clearances from their prior job. there has to be a cooling off period. they have to keep their mouth shut, go home and watch the government function. right now they're interfering with the function of our government as former senior policy executives. >> so they lose their first amendment, right? that's what he's saying? >> the hatch act -- >> trump is perfectly

enforceable under the first amendment. the hatch act was enforceable against me for 27 years. >> the first amendment doesn't get enforceable when you're employed or not employed. it doesn't spell out when you're employed or nonemployed. >> here's the bottom line. >> there's certain conditions that can be enforced. >> here's the bottom line. donald trump drives every narrative in this presidency. you want to block people from observing and speaking on what they saw. then both sides were highly critical of. right? >> wait a sec. i didn't suggest they block it. i'm saying it plays into donald trump's hands. he said i didn't get a fair shake. these people were conspiring against me. then you have james comey months after saying he has a higher loyalty saying don't worry about the policy. policies don't matter in this country. just vote for democrats which is in his self-interests because he doesn't want a probe of himself. >> wait a minute.

the gop left control. he's a life long republican. >> jason: he's registered as an independent. when he says vote for democrats no matter what, what is his best interests? if the democrats take over, trey gowdy and everything they've done goes away. i hope america sees through what he's trying to do. >> how does it go away with gop control? you all control everything. so why hasn't it gone away. in why don't the doj turn over documents to the senate? >> jason: oh, gee. john, i want to give you the last word here. you have like 10 seconds. what does the average fbi agent, the rank and file, what do they think when they see james comey say vote for democrats! >> can we just get back to being agents and doing our jobs without all the political discussion? that's what the rank and file agents are thinking. we don't want our directors to be political. we want to have the public's trust and do the job that they're doing right now. >> you're right.

my grandfather was a career fbi agent. i can't thank those men and women enough for what they do and how they do it. gentlemen, thank you. what are the democrats really after when it comes to russia? rush limbaugh has a theory. stay with us.

>> jason: so what are the democrats really after when it comes to the russian obsession? rush limbaugh put out an interesting theory yesterday. >> when the they lose, it can't be because they have been rejected by voters. no, there has to be some nefarious reason. there has to be tampering or meddling or collusion. and in the process, they have done a great job of making so many millions of americans question the integrity of elections now. i believe this has a very long-term purpose. that is to eventually get rid of

elections. don't laugh and be very careful in criticizing me. i'm here to tell you if they would, they would. >> jason: that might sound a little out there unless you tuned in to morning joe this week. >> eliminate the constitution and have another president take over right now. >> jason: seriously? get rid of the constitution and put in another president? that's the attitude the left has taken on morning joe. joining me to debate what's really going on, leo terrell, a civil rights attorney and horace cooper, a senior fellow at the national center for public policy research. gentlemen, thanks for joining us here. leo, what is the end game? what is the be session with russia? why is it and what is the end game? what are you playing for? >> first of all, can i make a comment about russia? russia is way out there. al gore with grace and dignity accepted the 2000 election.

regarding russia, donald trump does it. he should start inviting dan coats to the white house for more dinner. he's going to throw him under the bus. your friend, matt, who talked about how president trump threw the intelligence under the bus, mat got the memo. my point is simple. the russian meddling is real. both the democrats and the republicans realize that. finally, your colleague, trey gowdy, you know him, jason, he said the mueller probe is necessary. >> jason: leo, let's get our facts straight. it was barack obama weeks before the election said that nobody was doing it. if they tried, they couldn't do it. was that true or not true? >> well, see, that's a good move, jason. i mentioned your trey gowdy.

>> jason: we're not arguing about that. i'm asking is barack obama accurate or inaccurate? would he be lying or telling the truth? >> i can't get into the headset of barack obama and his motivations. >> jason: i understand that. let's go to -- >> great. >> jason: how do you read this? the left hasn't accepted these elections. pardon the expression here, but this is like jason 15, hillary clinton coming up with excuse after excuse after excuse for why they didn't win and they haven't accepted this outcome yet. that is their real problem. they're not concerned about america's national security the way they have you believe it. is that they're suddenly hawks there. >> chicken hawks. chicken hawks. >> jason: look what they did over my lifetime. i started working in washington

d.c. and i watched an organization called the american security council. they used to rate the democrats like nancy pelosi, dick durbin, chuck schumer all the way to the present. what we saw every chance it came to protect america from moscow, they were on the other side. they were cutting side deals. kennedy talking over with the russian governments and their leaders all the way to the present after george w. bush reaches an agreement with eastern european countries about an anti ballistic missile program. what do they do? >> you know, jason, those are talking points. we're talking about you cannot -- >> it's reality. >> you cannot trust putin. >> jason: i don't trust putin. >> you know the russian meddling is real. let's be honest, horace, look at the al gore footage. he accepted with dignity and

class the election. >> come on. >> you make a big point about al gore accepting the outcome of the election. i haven't seen it with hillary clinton. i saw it with grace and dignity from romney and al gore. why can't the democrats accept that donald trump is the president? >> the democrats can accept donald trump as the president. he won the electoral college. let me say that. jason, again, we have a problem. we have russian meddling in our fundamental process. elections, voting. your republican colleagues say the same thing. again, let's say this. please, president trump, please, don't fire dan coats for being honest. please, he's a good director of national intelligence. >> jason: thank you. horace, i want to ask you, rush limbaugh made a strong allegation that the democrats

want to get rid of elections. you had mike barnacle, a pretty respected person, that is out there saying let's get rid of the constitution or amend the constitution so that we can instill a new president. >> when moscow created the international peace movement that took over europe with their funding, where was the left? moscow say it was a farce that the president of the united states, ronald reagan, would put up a strategic defense initiative? where were the progressives. they were with moscow. you come to today, 2017, when we had the president's budget on defense, where were the progressives? they did not support it. >> do you believe this? >> no. >> jason: he does. >> theodore roosevelt said talk softly and carry -- >> okay. >> it was president kennedy. horace, how about missiles of october? 13 days in october. i suggest you read it and review

it. the guy in the white house is a guy named j.f.k., a democrat. you may not want to know that. >> jason: that was the last time -- >> more recently the russians brushed in and took over crimea. i didn't hear the democrats criticizing barack obama. i didn't hear them raising this. the president misspoke at a press conference something that he recanted and clarified and ya'll are going nuts. that's what's -- >> 60 years, the left has been on the wrong side, siding with moscow against the interests of america. >> jason: last word here. >> horace and jason, talk is cheap. let's see some results. if president trump is going to have putin come to the white house, let's see some result in all of these so-called disasters created by obama. let's see some disasters. talk the cheap right now. >> jason: there has been action and you know what? one of the things that vladimir putin is looking down the pipe at is the fact that there's tens

of billions of more dollars going into the defense of our nato allies. that didn't happen under any other president than president trump. gentlemen, thank you so much on this beautiful friday night. thanks for coming in. >> thank you. >> jason: outrageous and hypocritical? we'll show you the wildest things democrats said about trump-putin's summit when we come back. stay here. ♪look into my eyes ♪you will see ♪what you mean to me

♪don't tell me it's not worth trying for♪ ♪you know it's true ♪everything i do ♪i do it for you

>> jason: welcome back. i jason chaffetz in for laura ingraham on "the ingraham angle." when it comes to the helsinki summit, it's almost as if the liberals are in a contest to see who can be the most outraged. >> i would say his performance today will live in infamy as much as the pearl harbor attack. >> entire history of our country, americans have never seen a president of the united

states support an adversary the president trump has supported president putin. >> i sadly beseech president trump to apologize to the american people for his disgraceful, dangerous and damaging behavior with putin in helsinki. >> jason: wow! joining me for reaction, victor davis hansen, a senior fellow at the hoover institution. i believe you're in hawaii. aloha. thanks for joining us. i appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >> jason: you have democrats on that clip trying to compare something that he said he misspoke about and comparing that to pearl harbor, which you're just a few miles from. what is your reaction when you hear that? >> i'm a little worried. trump has expelled russians from

the united states, arm the ukrainians, warned putin and blunt terms about his behavior in syria. we've killed russian mercenaries that attacked a u.s. base. he's upped u.s. oil production, criticized the german dependence on oil. this is a man with 7,000 nukes. when he goes to a press conference, how willing are you to insult with the man with 7,000 nukes? we don't want to get into a spiral situation here where we keep trying to push putin in a corner, especially after we've seen eight years of the recent process where we didn't do much about ukraine or crimea, we

dismantled missile defense in eastern europe. we tool vladimir to behave, cut down oil production. it's surreal. we have to overreact because we didn't do much about putin and now we have to push trump into a corner where we're almost at war with the power that in terms of economic size is not comparable to china. china's espionage apparatus makes putin's look pathetic. so it's getting very dangerous. all of this is getting dangerous, jason. rhetorically we've exhausted the vocabulary of killing trump. we decapitate him, shoot him, blow him up, we've exhausted suing under the electoral college, we want to abandon it, looked at the 25th amendment, boycotted the inauguration,

introduced articles of impea impeachme impeachment. now they're calling him stalin, hitler, a traitor. what is the next level? where does this lead? there's 330 million people out there. some people think he's hitler, i've been told that, what are you going to do about it? the next level -- >> jason: and the democrats also -- that sounds unhinged. but they sounds like they're being hypocritical or hyper critical. president trump treated out a tweet of what hillary clinton said about russia when she was secretary of state in 2010. she told a russian tv network, "we want very much to have a strong russia because a strong confident prosperous stable russia is we think in the interest of the world." now, did not hear a single democrat that are yelling for a misstatement by the president at a press conference have the same sort of reaction to what hillary

clinton said and she wanted a strong russia. how does that sound? >> yes. well, and beyond that, barack obama said said that. so what is the font of this? the font is unhappiness over unexpected laws? perhaps regret that they weren't tougher on russia on the other 8 years. more importantly, to delegitimize the president -- >> jason: have you ever seen the democrats so -- democrats have always tried to advocate for let's have a dialogue. when the person in the white house, donald trump, is negotiating and actually having a dialogue and being a diplomat, they go unhunged. have you ever seen that? >> i don't think it has to do with republican. it has to do with the election. if it wasn't russia, it would be

something else. they were going to be magnanimous and make russia like it. they believe that weakness to be exploited. >> jason: professor, you have a great perspective. thanks for joining us on this friday night. if you thought the political reaction to the helsinki summit was outrageous, just wait until you hear what the comedians are saying. the greatest hits when we come back. ♪there's a me no one knows ♪waiting to be set free so, what's the empty suitcase for? the grand prize trophy

♪i was born to be somebody any paint can change the way a room looks. but only one can change how it feels. century, from benjamin moore, is the first-ever soft touch matte finish paint. its revolutionary texture unlocks 75 unprecedented colors, each with exquisite depth and richness. it's a difference you can see, touch, and feel. that's proudly particular. century. only at select local paint and hardware stores.

>> jason: just when you thought the politicians were losing their minds over helsinki, turns out the late night comedians are just as off the rails. take a look at the madness that ensued this week. >> helsinki has frozen over. the president of the united states publicly sided with russia over our own fbi on the subject of cyber attacks on our election campaign. >> is it possible that vladimir putin brought a hypnotist to the meeti meeting? >> can someone get trump a glass of water?

he's thirsty. it's only a matter of weeks before he single white females putin. can you imagine what the private meeting was like? i'm worried he let putin annex one of the 50 states. >> he's strong and powerful. he does not skip leg day. and i know because right now i am smooching his gluts. >> this is what you get when you put a kgb agent up against a kfc agent. >> i don't know. i know i'm getting older here but i thought they would be funnier. they don't seem to be very balanced. i didn't get much of a chuckle out of that. we're pleased to have with us jimmy fala, head writer on the kennedy program on fox business. jimmy, wow! they want trump to fail. i say, where is the jay leno

stuff? >> that was a rough montage. >> those are the highlights. >> this is why i stick to comedy channels like cnn. we can count on them for a laugh once in a while. you know what it is. you can see the bias and what they're saying, too. it infringes on their ability to be objectively funny because the audience knows it's coming. the one thing they kept pointing out, oh, if we elected hillary, we would never have an embarrassing press conference like this. yeah, because they couldn't afford their speaking fee. the whole thing is so bad. seth myers is horrible. >> jason: i don't subject myself to it anymore. i loved jay leno. i used to watch that and watch johnny carson. i love the reruns of the old stuff. but are any of these guys, do they ever go after anybody on the left or just activists? >> that's the problem. you know, you saw this a lot.

people always ask if we like the age of comedy and trump. it's setting back comedy tremendously. people don't know how to cartoon something that is already funny in its own right. trump is funny. he's funnier than late night comics. they can't deal with his appeal. he really is a real-life rodney dangerfield in the movie "caddieshack." he's upending their way of doing things. when it's crass or unorthodox, we think it's hilarious. >> jason: every time the president wants to do a live show, they pack them in by the tens of thousands. they can't find stadiums big enough. >> no, they love him. he has real standup chops. i talked to you about this with

kennedy. he's doing applause breaks. i appreciate trump. he's doing real comedy. i'm pro hacker. the last time i got my identity score, my credit score went up a few points. so i'm not against any of the stuff going on right now. >> jason: listen, you do a great job. if you haven't watched kennedy on fox business, it's a good show. it's engaging and you're a big part of that. >> it's the best written show on cable news. >> that's what you keep telling me. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. sleep disturbances keep 1 in 3 adults up at night.

only remfresh uses ion-powered melatonin to deliver up to 7 hours of sleep support. number 1 sleep doctor recommended remfresh -- your nightly sleep companion. available in the natural sleep section at walmart. for great deals on great gear. like savings of up to 40% or more on select men's and ladies' shoes and sandals. and save 25% or more on select camping gear. plus bring the kids for free workshops, crafts and games.

♪(piano music) jessica! we need to leave. right now! i need to get something. (boy): dance recitals are so boring. ♪there's a me no one knows ♪waiting to be set free so, what's the empty suitcase for? the grand prize trophy duh ♪i was born to be somebody >>thanks for sticking with us tonight on this ingraham angle special. that's all the time we have tonight. laura ingraham will be back here on monday, on what's sure to be another busy week. it's amazing what happens in just a week. in a sign of how close we are to

another election, they announce charlotte, north carolina as the site of its 2020 convention. congratulations to the queen city. i look forward to being here. ed henry is in for shannon bream next on fox news @ night. >> it turned out president trump's former lead attorney was taping some of their conversations. the mainstream media spent much of the day in a bit of meltdown mode. the story was confirmed by the president's more recent lead attorney. at least the tape part, not the affair part. raising the possibility tonight they actually wanted the story out there. in fact, the president is